empires do end

[horsefly 4,337]

Just now, Bort said:

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.

Thanks for that. Clear proof that China is motivated by pure altruism in its dealings with its own people and other countries, and is heading for an imminent communist utopia. You really are a bonehead aren't you! Incapable of reading something like Nineteen Eighty Four on its own merits.

Perhaps you would like to make a similar investigation of all those great socialist figures you so admire and exclude from your list all those who have expressed misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic, or homophobic views. Then you can use the blank piece of paper you're left with to practice your crayon drawings of the Chinese flag.

[horsefly 4,337]

19 minutes ago, Bort said:

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.

Where did I say that Marx didn't believe in the things he wrote. I just said that I believe Marx when he said that he is not a "Marxist". That had absolutely nothing to do with him lacking an ego you buffoon, it was a very serious point made about the status of his claims. His rejection of the idea that his work could be reduced to some procrustean theory doesn't remotely imply that he rejected his own work, quite the opposite. What he rejected was simpletons like you misreading and distorting what he said to support your ideological obsessions. Have you always struggled with reading and understanding words?

Edited July 14, 2022 by horsefly

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Where did I say that Marx didn't believe in the things he wrote. I just said that I believe Marx when he said that he is not a "Marxist". His rejection of the idea that his work could be reduced to some procrustean theory doesn't remotely imply that he rejected his own work, quite the opposite. What he rejected was simpletons like you misreading and distorting what he said to support your ideological obsessions. Have you always struggled with reading and understanding words?

When I use the word "theory", I use it to describe Marx's body of work, not some one-line panacea that you're apparently imagining.

You repeatedly seem to feel the need to question my intelligence, which is a shame. Try engaging in good faith.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,621]

10 minutes ago, Bort said:

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.

Do you remember the bit in Animal farm where the pigs sneak up in the night to change the messages painted on the barn while pretending they've never changed because it suits their political needs at the time? That's exactly what you've just done to Orwell by pretending that women's rights, gay rights, and minority rights were even significant socialist causes in the early 20th century, let alone social norms. 

We know Marx rejected an interpretation of his work in his lifetime and the odds are he'd reject your interpretation as well

Marxism has become a religion for some, including yourself, apparently; Marx is the God. But it's not really Marx as the God, but the idea of Marx according to the person espousing it.

The problem with Marxism as an ideology, whatever you argue in the name of Marxism will be right in your mind, just like the ISIS fanatics who set fire to khafir will be certain that they're doing Allah's work, or the bible belt Americans that have just banned abortion will be convinced they're doing the work of Jesus. China and the USSR are good things in your mind simply because they subscribed to the ideology/brand on paper; the practical horrors of the regimes are of no consequence in your need to defend the idea that they pretend to subscribe to. 

[horsefly 4,337]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

When I use the word "theory", I use it to describe Marx's body of work, not some one-line panacea that you're apparently imagining.

You repeatedly seem to feel the need to question my intelligence, which is a shame. Try engaging in good faith.

"When I use the word "theory", I use it to describe Marx's body of work, not some one-line panacea that you're apparently imagining."

So you, the great Marxist, think it right to ignore Marx's own protestations not to describe his own work as a theory, and reduce it to something he rejected called "Marxism"? That says everything we need to know about your putative knowledge of Marx. Marx was at pains to resist people like you using his work for egregious ideological exploitation. 

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

"When I use the word "theory", I use it to describe Marx's body of work, not some one-line panacea that you're apparently imagining."

So you, the great Marxist, think it right to ignore Marx's own protestations not to describe his own work as a theory, and reduce it to something he rejected called "Marxism"? That says everything we need to know about your putative knowledge of Marx. Marx was at pains to resist people like you using his work for egregious ideological exploitation. 

It's very tiring getting caught up in semantics, so I'll try to make it clear.

At no point have I referred to a Marxist theory, suggesting there's a single simple mantra one can apply to any situation.

I use it in this collective sense:

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,621]

29 minutes ago, Bort said:

It's very tiring getting caught up in semantics, so I'll try to make it clear.

At no point have I referred to a Marxist theory, suggesting there's a single simple mantra one can apply to any situation.

I use it in this collective sense:

 

You say that, but then you'll pretend China's a great Marxist 'work in progress' that we should all aspire to because they call themselves 'the people's republic', instead of the capitalist totalitarian state with zero regard for human rights that it actually is.

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,337]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

It's very tiring getting caught up in semantics, so I'll try to make it clear.

At no point have I referred to a Marxist theory, suggesting there's a single simple mantra one can apply to any situation.

I use it in this collective sense:

 

You honestly think you can escape the tripe you haven't written by quoting a general dictionary definition do you? Laughably naïve! You began this latest set of posts apologising for China's hideous despotic regime on the grounds that it was a necessary part of the historical (dialectical) materialism that would lead to a communist/Marxist utopia that would overthrow capitalism. That's a standard position of anyone who holds Marxism to be an ideological theory. I'm afraid you have chosen the wrong person to debate with if you think you can get out of the implications of your own words with some pathetic quote from a dictionary. 

[Bort 34]

43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You say that, but then you'll pretend China's a great Marxist 'work in progress' that we should all aspire to because they call themselves 'the people's republic', instead of the capitalist totalitarian state with zero regard for human rights that it actually is.

You're making things up. At no point have I said "the Chinese government call themselves socialist, so we should blindly believe them" or anything to that effect.

What I have done, repeatedly, is point to the empirical evidence that the CPC has overseen massive improvements in quality of life for the average Chinese citizen while maintaining state control over capital. This achievement is unprecedented at such a scale, and is a strong indicator that the CPC are indeed attempting to apply Marxist principles in their policymaking.

Anyone who believes that humanity needs to progress past capitalism due to its inherent limitations (e.g. the impossibility of perpetual growth in a finite system) should critically support China's endeavour rather than dismiss them as a "totalitarian state" because of some propaganda they've read in Western pro-capitalist media.

 

[Bort 34]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You honestly think you can escape the tripe you haven't written by quoting a general dictionary definition do you? Laughably naïve! You began this latest set of posts apologising for China's hideous despotic regime on the grounds that it was a necessary part of the historical (dialectical) materialism that would lead to a communist/Marxist utopia that would overthrow capitalism. That's a standard position of anyone who holds Marxism to be an ideological theory. I'm afraid you have chosen the wrong person to debate with if you think you can get out of the implications of your own words with some pathetic quote from a dictionary. 

I really don't understand what you think Marx's intentions were. He wrote about his interpretations of historical development, material reality, and the nature of capitalism - but we shouldn't attempt to apply any of that analysis to the current state of affairs because that would be too "ideological"?

Also, people keep using the term "utopia" to dismiss what I'm saying - please read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels (or at least look up a summary). Marxism is grounded in materialism, not idealism.

[horsefly 4,337]

19 minutes ago, Bort said:

You're making things up. At no point have I said "the Chinese government call themselves socialist, so we should blindly believe them" or anything to that effect.

What I have done, repeatedly, is point to the empirical evidence that the CPC has overseen massive improvements in quality of life for the average Chinese citizen while maintaining state control over capital. This achievement is unprecedented at such a scale, and is a strong indicator that the CPC are indeed attempting to apply Marxist principles in their policymaking.

Anyone who believes that humanity needs to progress past capitalism due to its inherent limitations (e.g. the impossibility of perpetual growth in a finite system) should critically support China's endeavour rather than dismiss them as a "totalitarian state" because of some propaganda they've read in Western pro-capitalist media.

 

My word, what utter claptrap! For someone who claims to support Marxist principles (socialism) you seem remarkably happy that the state is running the economy on the most rapacious capitalist principles whilst retaining totalitarian control over its population. Whatever happened to the central tenet that it is the people who should own the means of production (rather than the government and 500+ billionaires). The very idea that a self proclaimed Marxist should see this as "a strong indicator that the CPC are indeed attempting to apply Marxist principles in their policymaking." is one of the funniest things I have read. I think you need to do a bit of serious re-reading of Marx's work; what you have just described is a full-blooded rampant capitalist's wet dream.

[Bort 34]

Just now, horsefly said:

My word, what utter claptrap! For someone who claims to support Marxist principles (socialism) you seem remarkably happy that the state is running the economy on the most rapacious capitalist principles whilst retaining totalitarian control over its population. Whatever happened to the central tenet that it is the people who should own the means of production (rather than the government and 500+ billionaires). The very idea that a self proclaimed Marxist should see this as "a strong indicator that the CPC are indeed attempting to apply Marxist principles in their policymaking." is one of the funniest things I have read. I think you need to do a bit of serious re-reading of Marx's work; what you have just described is a full-blooded rampant capitalist's wet dream.

Neoliberalism is a rampant capitalist's wet dream. As I've already argued, China is the opposite of that.

Please look up the definitions of "vanguard party" and "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[horsefly 4,337]

13 minutes ago, Bort said:

Neoliberalism is a rampant capitalist's wet dream. As I've already argued, China is the opposite of that.

Please look up the definitions of "vanguard party" and "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Nope! Monopolised rampant capitalism of the Chinese kind is a dream come true for those in government and the 500+ billionaires they allow to exploit a subjugated population. Your support for Chinese style Marxism is merely the flip side of the same coin as unrestrained neoliberal capitalism, and sadly you are too ideologically blind to see it. 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by horsefly

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Nope! Monopolised rampant capitalism of the Chinese kind is a dream come true for those in government and the 500+ billionaires they allow to exploit a subjugated population. Your support for Chinese style Marxism is merely the flip side of the same coin as unrestrained capitalism, and sadly you are too ideologically blind to see it. 

 

You've obviously not read this in-depth article I shared, so I'll link it again:

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

Your repeated reluctance to engage with what I'm saying or investigate the information I'm offering, and instead attack me personally, makes it clear I'm wasting my time.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe in? How do you think an economy should be organised?

[horsefly 4,337]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

You've obviously not read this in-depth article I shared, so I'll link it again:

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

Your repeated reluctance to engage with what I'm saying or investigate the information I'm offering, and instead attack me personally, makes it clear I'm wasting my time.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe in? How do you think an economy should be organised?

I attacked your naïve, completely discredited, attachment to historical materialism. The fact that you think it indicates the progression of China through a stage of rampant capitalism (combined with political dictatorship) to some communist utopia is without any form of justification intellectually, and flies in the face of all the actual experience of regimes accumulated to date. That you act as an apologist for a regime predicated on terrorising, torturing, and murdering its own population ought to be a source of shame.

Edited July 14, 2022 by horsefly

[Bort 34]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I attacked your naïve, completely discredited, attachment to historical materialism. The fact that you think it indicates the progression of China through a stage of rampant capitalism (combined with political dictatorship) to some communist utopia is without any form of justification intellectually, and flies in the face of all the actual experience of regimes accumulated to date. That you act as an apologist for a regime predicated on terrorising, torturing, and murdering its own population ought to be a source of shame.

There you go again, "utopia". You can't help but argue against something I'm not saying.

The implementation of socialism will be different in any country which attempts it - Marxism is a scientific, evolving philosophy which acknowledges the importance of analysing the material conditions specific to each situation. Socialist policy doesn't need to be ideologically perfect (as if there's some blanket rule, which again, there isn't), especially not in its immensely complicated transitional stage - it merely aims to achieve a better standard of living than the phase of capitalism which preceded it, while preventing reactionary forces from instigating a regression back into capitalism.

I have no idea whether Marx's "higher stage of communism'' (which is presumably what you're referring to when mentioning a "utopia") is achievable any time soon, and frankly I don't think it matters. Let's work on the lower stage of communism first - China acknowledge that this will take decades of effort.

Here's another example of a "regime" for you: Cuba has some of the highest standards of living in the entire Caribbean, despite being sanctioned by the US for 60 years (and now even has a higher life expectancy than the US). Why do you think that is?

I'll ask once more - what do you believe in? Has capitalism managed to wear you down to the point where you can't imagine a better system being possible?

[horsefly 4,337]

3 minutes ago, Bort said:

Marxism is a scientific, evolving philosophy

 Marx didn't think so and neither does the Morning Star (https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/marxism-scientific-and-what-scientific-socialism).  There you go again with your discredited historical materialism. If you truly believe that the future lies with support for a despotic regime that tortures, murders, and imprisons is citizens on a mass scale to enforce its will, then I suggest you go and live under such a regime to discover how blessed you feel to be repressed for some nebulous future promise. 

Strange you never got back to me regarding the issue of whether a communist regime is supposed to hold that the workers should own the means to production rather than the state and 500 billionaires.

Re Cuba, it's certainly true that it has considerably improved its economic performance since it increasingly liberalised its mixed command economy. Do I really need to cite you all the examples of non-communist countries that fare much better. Seems somewhat unnecessary.

Re my own view; I don't believe capitalism or communism represent any kind of solution to the impending catastrophe that environmental collapse is about to visit upon the planet. The US and China are both set upon exploitation of human and physical resources in ways that lead to the same outcome. The big difference, of course, is that one of those is a country that enables its citizens a free voice to change its policies, and the other bumps you off or imprisons you for daring to question state authority. 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,621]

23 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:

 

This sentence right here shows you clearly buy into selling China as some sort of epic socialist project on the way to a communist utopia, with the works of Karl Marx as the guiding light. . Given that there's absolutely no real-world evidence that suggests it's heading towards anything other than an even more constrictive form of political totalitarianism paired with free market economics, the only explanation for your beliefs is you just buy into the Communist branding rather than the substance because you happen to find the purist ideology appealing.

 

[Bort 34]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 Marx didn't think so and neither does the Morning Star (https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/marxism-scientific-and-what-scientific-socialism).  There you go again with your discredited historical materialism. If you truly believe that the future lies with support for a despotic regime that tortures, murders, and imprisons is citizens on a mass scale to enforce its will, then I suggest you go and live under such a regime to discover how blessed you feel to be repressed for some nebulous future promise. 

Strange you never got back to me regarding the issue of whether a communist regime is supposed to hold that the workers should own the means to production rather than the state and 500 billionaires.

Re Cuba, it's certainly true that it has considerably improved its economic performance since it increasingly liberalised its mixed command economy. Do I really need to cite you all the examples of non-communist countries that fare much better. Seems somewhat unnecessary.

Re my own view; I don't believe capitalism or communism represent any kind of solution to the impending catastrophe that environmental collapse is about to visit upon the planet. The US and China are both set upon exploitation of human and physical resources in ways that lead to the same outcome. The big difference, of course, is that one of those is a country that enables its citizens a free voice to change its policies, and the other bumps you off or imprisons you for daring to question state authority. 

 

 

From the article you shared: "Marx himself declared that he had used the term “scientific socialism” only in opposition to utopian socialism". That's the context in which I also used the word "scientific", responding to your reference to "utopia".

As for the point about Chinese billionaires, I ask you (for the third time), please read this article: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Do non-communist countries at a similar stage of development have to deal with a trade embargo being placed on them for 60 years by the world's largest economy?

It's cute that you think the average American has any real say in shaping government policy. Look at the public support for universal healthcare, for instance - in a true democracy, wouldn't that have been implemented by now? Abortion rights are another obvious example.

Okay, so you're a nihilist presumably. Let me try to foster some hope.

If you're primarily concerned about the environment - and understandably so - the crucial difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is inherently reliant on perpetual economic growth in order to function. This is due to the role of debt as money creation in a capitalist economy; businesses are predominantly propped up by bank loans which charge interest, and in order for businesses to repay those loans while still making profit, the overall value of the economy must constantly increase (otherwise banks collapse and you have a crisis - ring any bells?)

One of the primary mechanisms that capitalism uses to support this obligatory economic growth is ever-increasing exploitation of the world's natural resources.

With socialism, the profit motive is no longer paramount, and policy can prioritise the long-term welfare of the population. Obviously China (and the USSR before it) have experienced significant economic growth, but this is a result of them developing their productive forces - once these forces are developed enough to support a socialist society, growth can slow or even stop.

Long story short: capitalism unavoidably relies on permanent growth and exploitation of the planet. Socialism does not.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,099]

15 minutes ago, Bort said:

From the article you shared: "Marx himself declared that he had used the term “scientific socialism” only in opposition to utopian socialism". That's the context in which I also used the word "scientific", responding to your reference to "utopia".

As for the point about Chinese billionaires, I ask you (for the third time), please read this article: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Do non-communist countries at a similar stage of development have to deal with a trade embargo being placed on them for 60 years by the world's largest economy?

It's cute that you think the average American has any real say in shaping government policy. Look at the public support for universal healthcare, for instance - in a true democracy, wouldn't that have been implemented by now? Abortion rights are another obvious example.

Okay, so you're a nihilist presumably. Let me try to foster some hope.

If you're primarily concerned about the environment - and understandably so - the crucial difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is inherently reliant on perpetual economic growth in order to function. This is due to the role of debt as money creation in a capitalist economy; businesses are predominantly propped up by bank loans which charge interest, and in order for businesses to repay those loans while still making profit, the overall value of the economy must constantly increase (otherwise banks collapse and you have a crisis - ring any bells?)

One of the primary mechanisms that capitalism uses to support this obligatory economic growth is ever-increasing exploitation of the world's natural resources.

With socialism, the profit motive is no longer paramount, and policy can prioritise the long-term welfare of the population. Obviously China (and the USSR before it) have experienced significant economic growth, but this is a result of them developing their productive forces - once these forces are developed enough to support a socialist society, growth can slow or even stop.

Long story short: capitalism unavoidably relies on permanent growth and exploitation of the planet. Socialism does not.

Some of this is right, some of it is the sort of stuff I used to say when I was 19.

Anyway, I saw an interesting interview with a Chinese businessman the other day where he said "In China the policies change but the party does not. In the West the parties change but the policies do not." He was absolutely right, not that I support a dictatorship obviously! I would just rather we fixed our broken political system. Capitalism is not the problem, the Capitalism Adam Smith wrote about doesn't resemble the modern day neoliberal dogma we have which is making everyone miserable (and it is). Capitalism of the 50s onwards was great. Then Thatcher and Reagan came along and we are where we are now.

[TheGunnShow 6,152]

China may be achieving considerable economic growth, but what methods are being used to suppress dissent?

China uses AI software to improve its surveillance capabilities | Reuters

Then there's this hellish surveillance in their social credit system.

The complicated truth about China's social credit system | WIRED UK

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Some of this is right, some of it is the sort of stuff I used to say when I was 19.

Anyway, I saw an interesting interview with a Chinese businessman the other day where he said "In China the policies change but the party does not. In the West the parties change but the policies do not." He was absolutely right, not that I support a dictatorship obviously! I would just rather we fixed our broken political system. Capitalism is not the problem, the Capitalism Adam Smith wrote about doesn't resemble the modern day neoliberal dogma we have which is making everyone miserable (and it is). Capitalism of the 50s onwards was great. Then Thatcher and Reagan came along and we are where we are now.

Haha, I'll try to overlook the patronisation.

I absolutely agree that capitalism has served its role in historical development, and improved the lives of many (not least the capitalists themselves) compared to what came before. The problem is that it is impossible to go back to the capitalism of the mid-20th century - neoliberalism is a desperate effort to address falling profits by suppressing salaries and stripping back government spending. Adam Smith himself acknowledged the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and Marx interpreted this tendency as proof that capitalism would inevitably eventually collapse. Hence the need to transition to a new system entirely.

[Bort 34]

33 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

China may be achieving considerable economic growth, but what methods are being used to suppress dissent?

China uses AI software to improve its surveillance capabilities | Reuters

Then there's this hellish surveillance in their social credit system.

The complicated truth about China's social credit system | WIRED UK

The hysteria around China's "social credit" system (which is primarily aimed at businesses rather than individuals, by the way) is ridiculous coming from a country like the UK - where hypothetically all it could take is missing a few huge utility bill payments to render someone unable to purchase their own home because of a damaged credit score, and resigning them to paying off a landlord's mortgage instead.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Bort

[horsefly 4,337]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

From the article you shared: "Marx himself declared that he had used the term “scientific socialism” only in opposition to utopian socialism". That's the context in which I also used the word "scientific", responding to your reference to "utopia".

As for the point about Chinese billionaires, I ask you (for the third time), please read this article: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

Do non-communist countries at a similar stage of development have to deal with a trade embargo being placed on them for 60 years by the world's largest economy?

It's cute that you think the average American has any real say in shaping government policy. Look at the public support for universal healthcare, for instance - in a true democracy, wouldn't that have been implemented by now? Abortion rights are another obvious example.

Okay, so you're a nihilist presumably. Let me try to foster some hope.

If you're primarily concerned about the environment - and understandably so - the crucial difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is inherently reliant on perpetual economic growth in order to function. This is due to the role of debt as money creation in a capitalist economy; businesses are predominantly propped up by bank loans which charge interest, and in order for businesses to repay those loans while still making profit, the overall value of the economy must constantly increase (otherwise banks collapse and you have a crisis - ring any bells?)

One of the primary mechanisms that capitalism uses to support this obligatory economic growth is ever-increasing exploitation of the world's natural resources.

With socialism, the profit motive is no longer paramount, and policy can prioritise the long-term welfare of the population. Obviously China (and the USSR before it) have experienced significant economic growth, but this is a result of them developing their productive forces - once these forces are developed enough to support a socialist society, growth can slow or even stop.

Long story short: capitalism unavoidably relies on permanent growth and exploitation of the planet. Socialism does not.

Spare me your amateur "explanations". Marx said his philosophy was informed by science NOT a form of science. 

The irony of talking about the US policy on abortion in the context of your unmitigated apology for the Chinese Communist government is truly tragic (if hilarious). 

And please don't be so foolish as to suggest that someone who sees an ideological commitment to capitalism or communism as neither providing a solution to the problems we face, must be a nihilist. Nothing of the sort follows. 

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And please don't be so foolish as to suggest that someone who sees an ideological commitment to capitalism or communism as neither providing a solution to the problems we face, must be a nihilist. Nothing of the sort follows. 

Ooh, exciting - does this mean you've come up with an alternative that no one else has thought of? Or are you going to tell me that the solution is Keynesian social democracy (a.k.a. Capitalism Light - new name, same old reliance on perpetual growth).

[horsefly 4,337]

5 minutes ago, Bort said:

Ooh, exciting - does this mean you've come up with an alternative that no one else has thought of? Or are you going to tell me that the solution is Keynesian social democracy (a.k.a. Capitalism Light - new name, same old reliance on perpetual growth).

Your half-arsed grasp of political theory is becoming a real a bore! I'll leave you to your apologising for one of the most grossly abusive dictatorships in human history. Glad it makes you so happy to support a mass murdering, human rights abusing regime. But I bet I'm a lot happier not having to make excuses for such depravity.

[TheGunnShow 6,152]

3 hours ago, Bort said:

The hysteria around China's "social credit" system (which is primarily aimed at businesses rather than individuals, by the way) is ridiculous coming from a country like the UK - where hypothetically all it could take is missing a few huge utility bill payments to render someone unable to purchase their own home because of a damaged credit score, and resigning them to paying off a landlord's mortgage instead.

You must have missed these bits from the article I put up. 

"Liu Hu is a journalist in China, writing about censorship and government corruption. Because of his work, Liu has been arrested and fined — and blacklisted. Liu found he was named on a List of Dishonest Persons Subject to Enforcement by the Supreme People's Court as "not qualified" to buy a plane ticket, and banned from travelling some train lines, buying property, or taking out a loan."

One city, Rongcheng, gives all residents 1,000 points to start. Authorities make deductions for bad behaviour like traffic violations, and add points for good behaviour such as donating to charity. One regulation Ohlberg recently read specifically addresses stealing electricity. Of course, you'll have to get caught first or be reported by someone else. While facial recognition is infamously used to spot jaywalkers, in some cities it's not so automated, Ohlberg notes.

At least in the case you mention in the UK, missing payments can be understood as being a potentially unreliable payer, so finding it harder to get credit would actually be logical. The Chinese government, on the other hand, seems to basically put everyone under the thumb, reward what they consider to be good / bad behaviour and suppress dissent.

There's a reason why Rwanda's president, Paul Kigame, is not considered the leader he used to be despite Rwanda's emergence from a brutal genocide. The reason, basically, is that he's suddenly gone full autocrat. The Chinese powers-that-be are no different.

Everything you need to know about human rights in China - Amnesty International Amnesty International

[littleyellowbirdie 2,621]

12 hours ago, Bort said:

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.

Marx wrote what he wrote as an academic, economist and philosopher; putting your ideas out there is not the same thing as trying to create a movement/cult that takes your ideas and either builds on them or potentially distorts them. 

As previously alluded to, Marx specifically criticised ideology as something used by ruling classes as a means to control the masses. Variations on Marxist theory, as opposed to the actual writings of Marx himself, are used in places like China as exactly that; a rhetorical tool to control the masses.

Edited July 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie