Extremism, centrism, 'the far right', (and the 'far left')

[Bort 68]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Thanks for the link 👍- it must be 40 years since I last read this!

Re China - It's nationalism rather than internationalism - shades of "socialism in one country." To quote form the German Ideology that you kindly provided:

"because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones" ... "Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

Yes that's talking about the end goal - the realisation of a communist society - but obviously the universal development that Marx talks about won't, and can't, be a globally uniform process at all stages of said development. To use a clumsy analogy, we can't move on to the next event until all participants cross the finish line of the current race, but it will inevitably take the participants differing amounts of time to reach the finish line before they can all cross it together.

What would Chinese Marxist internationalism look like to you?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

38 minutes ago, Bort said:

I suppose I should be glad you've taken to my imagery of a big red communism button and incorporated it into your ramblings. At least something got through, even if it was potentially the least meaningful of anything I've said ❤️

Do you happen to know what is delaying the Chinese Communist Party actually making China Communist?

[Bort 68]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do you happen to know what is delaying the Chinese Communist Party actually making China Communist?

I've explained this already, but I'll indulge you again - you see those "productive forces" that Marx keeps referring to in the quote Badger shared? They need to be highly developed before socialism, let alone communism, is possible. That takes time.

I strongly encourage you to read more Marxist theory if you're genuinely interested.

[canarydan23 4,637]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do you happen to know what is delaying the Chinese Communist Party actually making China Communist?

Your mum

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

I've explained this already, but I'll indulge you again - you see those "productive forces" that Marx keeps referring to in the quote Badger shared? They need to be highly developed before socialism, let alone communism, is possible. That takes time.

I strongly encourage you to read more Marxist theory if you're genuinely interested.

This quote?

"because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones" ... "Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

So you're saying that China has to control the entire world before it can introduce Communism?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Your mum

I wondered where you'd been.

Unlikely. She died three years ago.

[Bort 68]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This quote?

"because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones" ... "Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism."

So you're saying that China has to control the entire world before it can introduce Communism?

Lol no, each nation needs to have its own proletarian revolution (see "each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others")

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

7 minutes ago, Bort said:

Lol no, each nation needs to have its own proletarian revolution (see "each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others")

But in the meantime China has to remain an authoritarian capitalist economy while everyone waits for that?

Like I said, that'll be slightly after hell freezes over.

I don't see any good reason to wait if China genuinely has a model for a bona fide communist society that properly enfranchises its entire population.

Take the John Lewis Partnership for instance. It's a worker stakeholder model that actually works to a vision very reminiscent of what Marx was talking about. It has survived brilliantly over the years, largely thanks to the resilience of the business model and its ability to keep staff enthusiastic and committed to the advancing of the company. Seems to me that if that can survive wihout communism first taking over the whole world then what you're saying is just an excuse not to get on with it.

 

Edited September 17 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 68]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But in the meantime China has to remain an authoritarian capitalist economy while everyone waits for that?

Like I said, that'll be slightly after hell freezes over.

You should get in touch with Francis Fukuyama. He might be pleased someone still subscribes to his End of History mentality.

Primitive societies were forever, until they weren't...

Then ancient slave societies were forever, until they weren't...

Then feudalism was forever, until it wasn't...

Then capitalism is forever, until it isn't...

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

24 minutes ago, Bort said:

You should get in touch with Francis Fukuyama. He might be pleased someone still subscribes to his End of History mentality.

Primitive societies were forever, until they weren't...

Then ancient slave societies were forever, until they weren't...

Then feudalism was forever, until it wasn't...

Then capitalism is forever, until it isn't...

Marx envisioned a natural organic evolution from capitalism. I find that plausible. App development for different industries has created platforms for mutualised services all over the place. Cleaning services, taxis, all sorts of things.

People are supposed to be stakeholders in society: Voting gives us some sort of stake in the society we live in, much as company shares give you a vote in a company AGM; Chinese citizens have no stake and have to tough it out in an authoriarian capitalist state and wait for the entire world to become Communist before they'll get one apparently. Sounds like a big swizz to me.

(Edit: I don't know if I've ever said it on here, but I'm actually a big fan of economic democracy as a concept, which is basically what I see as the most plausible evolution in a democratic capitalist state.)

 

Edited September 17 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,637]

11 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I wondered where you'd been.

That doesn't surprise me.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

That doesn't surprise me.

It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't surprise you.