empires do end

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

To all those who think I'm Craig, ....I wish I could write like he does. Don't say you did not know or heard about it here first.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/07/the-death-of-the-british-imperial-state/

Edited July 6, 2022 by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Probably right… glad I won’t be around for a Chinese dominated world in 100 years though! A 1 party state with that much authority over the common citizen? No thanks.

[kirku 1,332]

[horsefly 4,287]

Oh the irony! A post on the death of empires from the man who supports Putin's attempt to recreate the Soviet empire (only this time without even the thinnest veneer of ideological commitment to the liberation of working people).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

On 06/07/2022 at 13:42, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

To all those who think I'm Craig, ....I wish I could write like he does. Don't say you did not know or heard about it here first.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/07/the-death-of-the-british-imperial-state/

What puzzles me about this sort of rhetoric is how people can go on so much about neoliberalism while clearly not having a clue what it means. China underwent huge market-oriented reforms to be able to compete and ultimately dominate in global markets.

China is very much a neoliberal state, only an authoritarian and totalitarian one to boot, where if you're convicted of a crime, you'll also get the bill for the bullet they put in your head; I'd say that the state not even paying to execute the people it wants to execute is as neoliberal as it gets. 

As for Starmer being surrounded by three Union flags, then good on him. Flags are important as representations of countries. In my village here in France, population less than 10,000,  you can count four Tricolores flying in the village all of the time. There are also many pictures  of Xi Jinping in front of a Chinese flag and all Chinese state buildings will fly one. Who wants a politician running a country that's so embarrassed by their country that they don't want to be associated with its flag? 

Edited July 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

China is very much a neoliberal state, only an authoritarian and totalitarian one to boot, where if you're convicted of a crime, you'll also get the bill for the bullet they put in your head; I'd say that the state not even paying to execute the people it wants to execute is as neoliberal as it gets. 

I'll be generous and ask if you have a source for that claim about the Chinese government routinely charging for executions (and try not to rely on Lin Zhao, a single example from 50-odd years ago who was exonerated in the 80s).

Neoliberalism is predicated on minimising regulation and maximising corporate influence over the state apparatus (through lobbying/bribery etc, as we see in the West) - China is the exact opposite of that, with state dominance of the commercial sector. The government direct Chinese corporations, not the other way round. Xi Jinping is expanding the presence of the CPC in private companies, in order to promote prioritisation of societal development over profits:

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

3 hours ago, Bort said:

I'll be generous and ask if you have a source for that claim about the Chinese government routinely charging for executions (and try not to rely on Lin Zhao, a single example from 50-odd years ago who was exonerated in the 80s).

Neoliberalism is predicated on minimising regulation and maximising corporate influence over the state apparatus (through lobbying/bribery etc, as we see in the West) - China is the exact opposite of that, with state dominance of the commercial sector. The government direct Chinese corporations, not the other way round. Xi Jinping is expanding the presence of the CPC in private companies, in order to promote prioritisation of societal development over profits:

 

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/books/article/2143321/story-martyr-maos-china-executed-and-her-family-billed

I will definitely cite the example of Lin Shao as it's the most famous example, it demonstrates a precedent, and there's no reason to believe it was a one off.

There are plenty of anecdotes of bullet fees in China. This is the most famous. Obviously, Chinese citizens aren't wildly enthusiastic about going on the record about China's more negative practises, on account of the unfortunate tendency for people that do to disappear.

Beyond that though, given the current situation in Hong Kong and China's human rights abuses against Uighurs, I do wonder why you're leaping to China's defense over a throwaway comment.

China is economically liberal; it's political expression that's heavily regulated, and money doesn't necessarily mean power in China, although power always means money there.

Edited July 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/books/article/2143321/story-martyr-maos-china-executed-and-her-family-billed

I will definitely cite the example of Lin Shao as it's the most famous example, it demonstrates a precedent, and there's no reason to believe it was a one off.

There are plenty of anecdotes of bullet fees in China. This is the most famous. Obviously, Chinese citizens aren't wildly enthusiastic about going on the record about China's more negative practises, on account of the unfortunate tendency for people that do to disappear.

Beyond that though, given the current situation in Hong Kong and China's human rights abuses against Uighurs, I do wonder why you're leaping to China's defense over a throwaway comment.

China is economically liberal; it's political expression that's heavily regulated, and money doesn't necessarily mean power in China, although power always means money there.

Okay, so you're relying on conjecture and "anecdotes". Good to know.

Every single government monitors (and sometimes punishes) people who threaten their authority - it's asinine to act like China is especially prominent in this regard. For the UK, look at the treatment of Julian Assange, the recent Policing Act and the proposed Public Order Bill for starters. If you have the patience, this article goes into some detail about the FBI's methods of political repression in the US: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/22/terrorism-fbi-political-dissent/

And that's just domestic policy - the role of Western intelligence agencies in the manipulation of "hostile" foreign governments is an even more striking expression of state power. I can't quite find any evidence of overseas coups sponsored by the Chinese government, on the other hand.

As for the reports of human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the majority that I've seen seem to trace back to one man - Adrian Zenz from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (which was set up by the US government in the 1990s). He manipulates, or fabricates, data to suit his anti-communist agenda, and even a cursory glance at high-level figures shows how ridiculous his accusations of "genocide" are. Average life expectancy in Xinjiang before the communist revolution was less than 30 years, and now it's 74. The Uyghur population is increasing.

If we need any more reason to doubt the moral integrity of Zenz, here's a quote from his 2012 book on the Christian rapture, Worthy to Escape: "God's refining process will wipe out all unbelieving Jews who refuse to come to Christ".

One other source I've seen for reports on Xinjiang is the World Uyghur Congress, which is funded by... you guessed it, the United States government. Please forgive me if I'm yet to be convinced.

So going back to the concept of state authority, it really boils down to whether you think any particular government is acting in the best interests of the majority of its citizens. For the UK/US, I'd argue no, given the stagnation in standards of living while corporations make record profits. For China, its unparalleled increases in life expectancy, average salary, literacy rate, and investment in low-carbon technology (for example) indicate that the CPC is worthy of support. This is backed up by a Harvard research project which showed that 95% of Chinese citizens were satisfied with their central government (compared to 38% in the USA).

The data is incredibly compelling, if only people analyse it rather than accepting the nonsense headlines presented to us by billionaire-owned Western media.

[horsefly 4,287]

10 minutes ago, Bort said:

Okay, so you're relying on conjecture and "anecdotes". Good to know.

Every single government monitors (and sometimes punishes) people who threaten their authority - it's asinine to act like China is especially prominent in this regard. For the UK, look at the treatment of Julian Assange, the recent Policing Act and the proposed Public Order Bill for starters. If you have the patience, this article goes into some detail about the FBI's methods of political repression in the US: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/22/terrorism-fbi-political-dissent/

And that's just domestic policy - the role of Western intelligence agencies in the manipulation of "hostile" foreign governments is an even more striking expression of state power. I can't quite find any evidence of overseas coups sponsored by the Chinese government, on the other hand.

As for the reports of human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the majority that I've seen seem to trace back to one man - Adrian Zenz from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (which was set up by the US government in the 1990s). He manipulates, or fabricates, data to suit his anti-communist agenda, and even a cursory glance at high-level figures shows how ridiculous his accusations of "genocide" are. Average life expectancy in Xinjiang before the communist revolution was less than 30 years, and now it's 74. The Uyghur population is increasing.

If we need any more reason to doubt the moral integrity of Zenz, here's a quote from his 2012 book on the Christian rapture, Worthy to Escape: "God's refining process will wipe out all unbelieving Jews who refuse to come to Christ".

One other source I've seen for reports on Xinjiang is the World Uyghur Congress, which is funded by... you guessed it, the United States government. Please forgive me if I'm yet to be convinced.

So going back to the concept of state authority, it really boils down to whether you think any particular government is acting in the best interests of the majority of its citizens. For the UK/US, I'd argue no, given the stagnation in standards of living while corporations make record profits. For China, its unparalleled increases in life expectancy, average salary, literacy rate, and investment in low-carbon technology (for example) indicate that the CPC is worthy of support. This is backed up by a Harvard research project which showed that 95% of Chinese citizens were satisfied with their central government (compared to 38% in the USA).

The data is incredibly compelling, if only people analyse it rather than accepting the nonsense headlines presented to us by billionaire-owned Western media.

This is meant to be irony isn't it? Such marvellous humour has to be admired. I particularly liked that last bit where you quote 95% of Chinese citizens being satisfied with their central government. Really, really thick people would take that as a sign of popularity, whereas anyone with more than two brain cells would recognise such figures to be a classic indication of an extreme repressive dictatorship. But, of course you obviously know that otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. Hilarious!

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

This is meant to be irony isn't it? Such marvellous humour has to be admired. I particularly liked that last bit where you quote 95% of Chinese citizens being satisfied with their central government. Really, really thick people would take that as a sign of popularity, whereas anyone with more than two brain cells would recognise such figures to be a classic indication of an extreme repressive dictatorship. But, of course you obviously know that otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. Hilarious!

I recommend you read the Harvard report, which is far more nuanced than your interpretation (especially accounting for the inevitable Western bias).

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

 

[horsefly 4,287]

8 minutes ago, Bort said:

I recommend you read the Harvard report, which is far more nuanced than your interpretation (especially accounting for the inevitable Western bias).

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

 

So are you seriously suggesting that 95% support from Chinese citizens for its central government represents anything other than a clear example of the control of a repressive dictatorship?

[Bort 34]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So are you seriously suggesting that 95% support from Chinese citizens for its central government represents anything other than a clear example of the control of a repressive dictatorship?

If they were under the control of a repressive dictatorship, do you think they'd have taken the risk of rating their satisfaction with local government (which is still part of the CPC) so much lower?

The Harvard report makes the very clear point that if quality of life has increased year on year for the last 40 years, it shouldn't be surprising that satisfaction with central government policy would be very high.

If you're interested in understanding the structure of Chinese government rather than repeatedly dismissing it as a "dictatorship", give this a read (again, forgive the Western bias that creeps in at certain points):

https://www.cecc.gov/chinas-state-organizational-structure

 

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

If they were under the control of a repressive dictatorship, do you think they'd have taken the risk of rating their satisfaction with local government (which is still part of the CPC) so much lower?

The Harvard report makes the very clear point that if quality of life has increased year on year for the last 40 years, it shouldn't be surprising that satisfaction with central government policy would be very high.

If you're interested in understanding the structure of Chinese government rather than repeatedly dismissing it as a "dictatorship", give this a read (again, forgive the Western bias that creeps in at certain points):

https://www.cecc.gov/chinas-state-organizational-structure

 

I'll read that after you read all the Amnesty International reports into the Chinese government's use torture, false imprisonment, restriction on freedom of speech, and the death penalty. 

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'll read that after you read all the Amnesty International reports into the Chinese government's use torture, false imprisonment, restriction on freedom of speech, and the death penalty. 

True, imagine a country responsible for all of those things being the global hegemon. Doesn't bear thinking about!

[horsefly 4,287]

5 minutes ago, Bort said:

True, imagine a country responsible for all of those things being the global hegemon. Doesn't bear thinking about!

Sad thing about you is that you support the likes of of China and Russia unconditionally despite their hideous records on human rights abuses. I'm happy to say I criticise all governments that engage in human rights abuses. Plenty of posts on this site from me criticising the US, perhaps you should take a look to get some idea of what it's like to free yourself from ridiculous ideological apologising for grotesque regimes.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

Okay, so you're relying on conjecture and "anecdotes". Good to know.

Every single government monitors (and sometimes punishes) people who threaten their authority - it's asinine to act like China is especially prominent in this regard. For the UK, look at the treatment of Julian Assange, the recent Policing Act and the proposed Public Order Bill for starters. If you have the patience, this article goes into some detail about the FBI's methods of political repression in the US: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/22/terrorism-fbi-political-dissent/

And that's just domestic policy - the role of Western intelligence agencies in the manipulation of "hostile" foreign governments is an even more striking expression of state power. I can't quite find any evidence of overseas coups sponsored by the Chinese government, on the other hand.

As for the reports of human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the majority that I've seen seem to trace back to one man - Adrian Zenz from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (which was set up by the US government in the 1990s). He manipulates, or fabricates, data to suit his anti-communist agenda, and even a cursory glance at high-level figures shows how ridiculous his accusations of "genocide" are. Average life expectancy in Xinjiang before the communist revolution was less than 30 years, and now it's 74. The Uyghur population is increasing.

If we need any more reason to doubt the moral integrity of Zenz, here's a quote from his 2012 book on the Christian rapture, Worthy to Escape: "God's refining process will wipe out all unbelieving Jews who refuse to come to Christ".

One other source I've seen for reports on Xinjiang is the World Uyghur Congress, which is funded by... you guessed it, the United States government. Please forgive me if I'm yet to be convinced.

So going back to the concept of state authority, it really boils down to whether you think any particular government is acting in the best interests of the majority of its citizens. For the UK/US, I'd argue no, given the stagnation in standards of living while corporations make record profits. For China, its unparalleled increases in life expectancy, average salary, literacy rate, and investment in low-carbon technology (for example) indicate that the CPC is worthy of support. This is backed up by a Harvard research project which showed that 95% of Chinese citizens were satisfied with their central government (compared to 38% in the USA).

The data is incredibly compelling, if only people analyse it rather than accepting the nonsense headlines presented to us by billionaire-owned Western media.

Assange broke laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the American people and will get a trial. That's more than all of the pro democracy protesters in Hong Kong ever get, who just disappear. People know what he did, and they can express their views about how he's dealt with according to US law and international treaty. In my view, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. 

Family friends live in Hong Kong. They're moving out and leave their phones in the house and go for walks in the countryside as the only way to have open conversations. That's the extent of totalitarianism they live with.

You talk about Western media 'propaganda', but our journalists don't disappear when they print stories that get Boris Johnson removed from office, but anyone that threatened Xi Jinping like that would be gone. But you carry on making your false comparisons, by all means. 

As to standards of living, no doubt they're going down, but until we get to the point where people live in factories and commit suicide in them, like at Foxconn, I'll rack that up as yet another false comparison on your part. 

At the end of the day, if you believe China's so great, move there. Just be careful what you say while you're there. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Sad thing about you is that you support the likes of of China and Russia unconditionally despite their hideous records on human rights abuses. I'm happy to say I criticise all governments that engage in human rights abuses. Plenty of posts on this site from me criticising the US, perhaps you should take a look to get some idea of what it's like to free yourself from ridiculous ideological apologising for grotesque regimes.

Not at all, it's very simple - I critically support any government which demonstrates the intention and competence to improve the quality of life for its people without relying on further exploitation of the Global South. The best way for most countries to do that currently is to implement socialist theory in policymaking, ideally challenging US-led capitalist imperialism at the same time (China is achieving both, whereas Russia is sadly only doing the latter these days). 

Even a multipolar capitalist world would be better for the average person than the unipolar one we currently live in, as it would more quickly create the conditions necessary to instigate the transition to socialism (decline in profits, nationalisation, class consciousness, etc).

Marx's writings on historical materialism are incredibly useful in contextualising the trajectory of human development, and seeing the big picture behind geopolitics.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

7 minutes ago, Bort said:

Not at all, it's very simple - I critically support any government which demonstrates the intention and competence to improve the quality of life for its people without relying on further exploitation of the Global South. The best way for most countries to do that currently is to implement socialist theory in policymaking, ideally challenging US-led capitalist imperialism at the same time (China is achieving both, whereas Russia is sadly only doing the latter these days). 

Even a multipolar capitalist world would be better for the average person than the unipolar one we currently live in, as it would more quickly create the conditions necessary to instigate the transition to socialism (decline in profits, nationalisation, class consciousness, etc).

Marx's writings on historical materialism are incredibly useful in contextualising the trajectory of human development, and seeing the big picture behind geopolitics.

The big irony about Marx is that he was very critical of ideas turning into ideology, yet here are people like you trotting it out as ideology and holding up totalitarian states guilty of countless human rights violations and offering terrible working conditions as some sort of role model for a socialist utopia. Utterly bizarre. I often wonder what he'd make of it. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

15 minutes ago, Bort said:

Not at all, it's very simple - I critically support any government which demonstrates the intention and competence to improve the quality of life for its people without relying on further exploitation of the Global South. The best way for most countries to do that currently is to implement socialist theory in policymaking, ideally challenging US-led capitalist imperialism at the same time (China is achieving both, whereas Russia is sadly only doing the latter these days). 

Even a multipolar capitalist world would be better for the average person than the unipolar one we currently live in, as it would more quickly create the conditions necessary to instigate the transition to socialism (decline in profits, nationalisation, class consciousness, etc).

Marx's writings on historical materialism are incredibly useful in contextualising the trajectory of human development, and seeing the big picture behind geopolitics.

Do you know what the conditions required to replace capitalism with socialism are? Replace the human race with ants, because there's a reason why so-called communist states always finish up looking more like a dictatorship. 

Take the USSR for example. They took Marx' idea of the people owning the means of production and somehow twisted it into the state owning the means of production. But the ordinary plebs had no democratic say, so in the end the politburo effectively controlled the means of production with no accountability, not the people. What a sham. 

Ordinary people basically had nothing, and technically the politburo also had nothing, but oddly had the use of much nicer and shinier stuff than your ordinary run of the mill 'comrade'. 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The big irony about Marx is that he was very critical of ideas turning into ideology, yet here are people like you trotting it out as ideology and holding up totalitarian states guilty of countless human rights violations and offering terrible working conditions as some sort of role model for a socialist utopia. Utterly bizarre. I often wonder what he'd make of it. 

As I pointed out before, Marx himself said that the one thing he was sure of was that he wasn't a Marxist (for the reasons you state). 

[horsefly 4,287]

7 hours ago, Bort said:

Not at all, it's very simple - I critically support any government which demonstrates the intention and competence to improve the quality of life for its people without relying on further exploitation of the Global South. The best way for most countries to do that currently is to implement socialist theory in policymaking, ideally challenging US-led capitalist imperialism at the same time (China is achieving both, whereas Russia is sadly only doing the latter these days). 

Even a multipolar capitalist world would be better for the average person than the unipolar one we currently live in, as it would more quickly create the conditions necessary to instigate the transition to socialism (decline in profits, nationalisation, class consciousness, etc).

Marx's writings on historical materialism are incredibly useful in contextualising the trajectory of human development, and seeing the big picture behind geopolitics.

Your naivety is quite remarkable. I'm beginning to think that you get your ideas from Citizen Smith rather than any reading of citizen Marx. Your ignorance of the rapacious exploitation of other countries by China's dictatorship is astonishing. I suggest you take a good look at the African continent if you want to see China's dictatorial version of capitalistic empire building in all its inglorious depravity. Perhaps that's OK for you because you (for some reason) exclude it from the "Global South". If you believe China represents anything like a genuine socialist political system you really are in wont of the most basic education in political theory. There are 539 billionaires in China (the second largest country behind the US), and circa 17 million living in poverty; remind me which socialist principle allows for that distribution of wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires#:~:text=Per Forbes (March 2022) Rank, 0.101 73 more rows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

Edited July 14, 2022 by horsefly

[Bort 34]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The big irony about Marx is that he was very critical of ideas turning into ideology, yet here are people like you trotting it out as ideology and holding up totalitarian states guilty of countless human rights violations and offering terrible working conditions as some sort of role model for a socialist utopia. Utterly bizarre. I often wonder what he'd make of it. 

You're putting words in my mouth. Assuming your "utopia" comment was about China, the CPC make no claim that they've achieved socialism, and neither does any serious socialist. What's obvious - based on any quality of life metric you care to choose - is that life for the average person in China is now vastly better than it was before the CPC came to power. And please don't try to counter that with something meaningless like "well the American Eagle Institute gave China a Freedom score of zero, so there!"

China is a work in progress, but one which shows promising intention and potential ability to progress past capitalism. That's why it gets my support. And that's also why it's being framed as such a threat by the Western capitalists.

Engels wrote "State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict [of capitalism], but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution."

State ownership is an intermediary step, not the final goal. The USSR failed at this stage, but I have hope that China's higher population, stronger economy, more developed productive forces and international alliances will see it eventually succeed, aided by the influence of the US waning as capitalism decays there.

(As an aside, if you'd like an all-encompassing example of what socialist policy did for the people of the USSR, take a look at this data. How's that for having "nothing"?)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041395/life-expectancy-russia-all-time/

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your naivety is quite remarkable. I'm beginning to think that you get your ideas from Citizen Smith rather than any reading of citizen Marx. Your ignorance of the rapacious exploitation of other countries by China's dictatorship is astonishing. I suggest you take a good look at the African continent if you want to see China's dictatorial version of capitalistic empire building in all its inglorious depravity. Perhaps that's OK for you because it isn't the "Global South". If you believe China represents anything like a genuine socialist political system you really are in wont of the most basic education in political theory. There are 539 billionaires in China (the second largest country behind the US), and circa 17 million living in poverty; remind me which socialist principle allows for that distribution of wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires#:~:text=Per Forbes (March 2022) Rank, 0.101 73 more rows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

If you're talking about the Belt and Road Initiative, that's a mutually beneficial arrangement to develop infrastructure, and countries are using it for funding because it's less restrictive than the alternatives offered by the IMF and World Bank. Note that when talking about Sri Lanka's collapsing economy, for example, Western media focuses on the 10% of its international debt which is owed to China rather than the 90% which isn't.

This article goes into some detail to explain why China having billionaires isn't necessarily inconsistent with Marxist theory:

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Did you even read the Wikipedia article on Chinese poverty?? The point I'm trying to make is highlighted by the very first paragraph!

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

What's obvious - based on any quality of life metric you care to choose - is that life for the average person in China is now vastly better than it was before the CPC came to power

Unless you happen to be one of the millions that Mao starved to death, or more recently one of the many thousands executed by the state.

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

You're putting words in my mouth. Assuming your "utopia" comment was about China, the CPC make no claim that they've achieved socialism, and neither does any serious socialist

The usual historical materialist tripe resorted to by every communist apologist to explain away their failures and the need to exploit and repress ordinary people. There are plenty of genuine socialists who absolutely reject this shi*te excuse (try reading some Orwell for example).

 

9 minutes ago, Bort said:

China is a work in progress, but one which shows promising intention and potential ability to progress past capitalism. That's why it gets my support. And that's also why it's being framed as such a threat by the Western capitalists.

Hilarious! You win the award for most gullible apologist on this site.

11 minutes ago, Bort said:

State ownership is an intermediary step, not the final goal. The USSR failed at this stage, but I have hope that China's higher population, stronger economy, more developed productive forces and international alliances will see it eventually succeed, aided by the influence of the US waning as capitalism decays there.

Oh dear! China has achieved its current position precisely because it abandoned any pretence to implement genuine communist principles and adopted full blooded capitalism with the "benefit" of complete state control. The very idea that it will transform to some kind of communist Utopia once it has completed its rapacious capitalistic exploitation of its own people and other countries is beyond hilarious. 

[horsefly 4,287]

3 minutes ago, Bort said:

If you're talking about the Belt and Road Initiative, that's a mutually beneficial arrangement to develop infrastructure, and countries are using it for funding because it's less restrictive than the alternatives offered by the IMF and World Bank. Note that when talking about Sri Lanka's collapsing economy, for example, Western media focuses on the 10% of its international debt which is owed to China rather than the 90% which isn't.

This article goes into some detail to explain why China having billionaires isn't necessarily inconsistent with Marxist theory:

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Did you even read the Wikipedia article on Chinese poverty?? The point I'm trying to make is highlighted by the very first paragraph!

You can't help yourself can you! just because a dictatorship calls itself communist you are prepared to make yourself look foolish by supporting its brutal despotic exploitation of its own people and other countries. So very sad. 

[Bort 34]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

As I pointed out before, Marx himself said that the one thing he was sure of was that he wasn't a Marxist (for the reasons you state). 

This is a widely misunderstood quote. Marx was disagreeing with a specific interpretation of his work, not rejecting his own theory outright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue#:~:text=Marx accused them of "revolutionary,am not a Marxist").

 

[horsefly 4,287]

3 minutes ago, Bort said:

This is a widely misunderstood quote. Marx was disagreeing with a specific interpretation of his work, not rejecting his own theory outright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue#:~:text=Marx accused them of "revolutionary,am not a Marxist").

 

Wrong again! He rejected the idea that there was such a thing as "Marxist theory"

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

38 minutes ago, Bort said:

You're putting words in my mouth. Assuming your "utopia" comment was about China, the CPC make no claim that they've achieved socialism, and neither does any serious socialist. What's obvious - based on any quality of life metric you care to choose - is that life for the average person in China is now vastly better than it was before the CPC came to power. And please don't try to counter that with something meaningless like "well the American Eagle Institute gave China a Freedom score of zero, so there!"

China is a work in progress, but one which shows promising intention and potential ability to progress past capitalism. That's why it gets my support. And that's also why it's being framed as such a threat by the Western capitalists.

Engels wrote "State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict [of capitalism], but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution."

State ownership is an intermediary step, not the final goal. The USSR failed at this stage, but I have hope that China's higher population, stronger economy, more developed productive forces and international alliances will see it eventually succeed, aided by the influence of the US waning as capitalism decays there.

(As an aside, if you'd like an all-encompassing example of what socialist policy did for the people of the USSR, take a look at this data. How's that for having "nothing"?)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041395/life-expectancy-russia-all-time/

China is a work in progress... well, I suppose the ANI used for behaviour recognition monitoring the population 24/7 can always use improvement, there are still plenty of Uighurs to indoctrinate in their reconditioning camps, some people are still a bit resistant in Hong Kong, so yes, in as much as the Chinese state doesn't have an absolutely perfect throttle hold on the people, it's a 'work in progress'. 

The life expectancy went in Russia went from absolutely abysmal to only consistently inferior to our own. Life expectancy in the USSR was at its peak in the early nineties where it was level with the UK's life expectancy... in 1955. 

State ownership is an intermediary step... the USSR never got around to it in nearly 70 years of existence before its collapse. It's all nice words in the hands of another set of greedy people, only completely unaccountable greedy people spouting nice egalitarian words and calling each other comrade while murdering everyone who dares protest. 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

There are plenty of genuine socialists who absolutely reject this shi*te excuse (try reading some Orwell for example).

Haha, Orwell was an embarrassment to socialism. He made a secret list of "communists" which he then submitted to the British government (Big Brother anyone?). Not to mention his backwards attitudes on women, gay people, and ethnic minorities. One person made it onto his list for being "anti-white"! He was also wildly anti-Semitic.

So no, I don't care much for his interpretation of the world.

[Bort 34]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Wrong again! He rejected the idea that there was such a thing as "Marxist theory"

Well yes obviously, he didn't have a big enough ego to call it "Marxist theory" himself. It was Engels who coined that specific term.

Trying to pretend that Marx didn't believe in the things he wrote is utterly bizarre.