Some indisputable facts about China

[Seph]

After living in China and studying the language for a few years now, a number of truths have become obvious to me. I consider the following 3 points to be essentially non-debatable, meaning that while I am open to discuss possible interpretations of the facts, questioning the basic validity of facts themselves is akin to questioning whether or not the earth is round; only to be done by the dishonest and the ignorant.

And if it makes a difference, I'm living in DongBei region which is the most traditionally communist and "most real Chinese" region left in the country. It really is a different world than Shanghai or even Beijing.

1. The average citizen's standard of living is relatively much closer to that of the average Canadian's (I'm from Canada) standard of living, than it was 40 years ago. This is not because of a regression on our part, but because of a relative gain on their part.

2. The average citizen's life is staggeringly better now, than it was just 30-50 years ago, even when accounting for natural progress in technology.

3.The above two points are either due to free market reforms, or sets of simply inconceivable coincidences.

So please, lets hear your theories.

[#FF0000]

Well can you provide a source for any of this or are you basing this completely on your own experience?

[anticap]

Yes, yes, we know: all good things that happen under market reforms are the result of those reforms; whereas all bad things that happen under market reforms are the result of those reforms not going far enough.

[Seph]

Well can you provide a source for any of this or are you basing this completely on your own experience?

Personal experiences.

In the same sense that I don't need to quote a book to prove that the ghetto exists; its just kind of....self evident.

If you want to challenge these facts that I hold as self evident, by all means, use whatever resources you choose.

[Seph]

Yes, yes, we know: all good things that happen under market reforms are the result of those reforms; whereas all bad things that happen under market reforms are the result of those reforms not going far enough.

Could you provide some substance? Ideally, something specifically linked to the content of my post.

[anticap]

Could you provide some substance? Ideally, something specifically linked to the content of my post.

I laid out the premises under which you operate.

[Seph]

I laid out the premises under which you operate.

By all means, feel free to prove it within the context of my post.

[#FF0000]

In the same sense that I don't need to quote a book to prove that the ghetto exists; its just kind of....self evident.

Well saying ghettos exist is sort of different from saying the average quality of one place is the same as another.


Personal experiences.

In the same sense that I don't need to quote a book to prove that the ghetto exists; its just kind of....self evident.

If you want to challenge these facts that I hold as self evident, by all means, use whatever resources you choose.

Nah I won't. I'll challenge that it's just the result of market reforms, though. From what little I know, that region of China was one of the first to industrialize and is all about steel and coal and things like that. On top of that, the gov't has been pouring money into the place to improve infrastructure, and there are a lot of investments coming in.

So yeah.

[Seph]

Well saying ghettos exist is sort of different from saying the average quality of one place is the same as another.

I was only making the point that both are equally obvious.



Nah I won't. I'll challenge that it's just the result of market reforms, though.

So what was it then that caused such an immense and sudden shift starting in the late 70s?


From what little I know, that region of China was one of the first to industrialize and is all about steel and coal and things like that. On top of that, the gov't has been pouring money into the place to improve infrastructure, and there are a lot of investments coming in.

So yeah.

All basically true, but my point wasn't that China does not have a strong central state, just that it is less so than in the past.

[anticap]

By all means, feel free to prove it within the context of my post.

You explicitly attribute China's improvements to market reforms where they have been implemented. Thus, it is implicit that you believe that market reforms would improve other areas if they were implemented in those areas. It is therefore further implicit that you believe the inverse.

Good things are the result of market reforms; bad things are the result of the lack of market reforms.

[#FF0000]

Yeah. Well either way maybe market reforms did it, maybe there was a massive influx of cash from investments or something. I don't know that much about Chinese history in the past fifty years to say for sure.

But either way It's not as if capitalism can't improve quality of life for some people. It's just that it's for, you know, -some- people.

[Seph]

Yeah. Well either way maybe market reforms did it, maybe there was a massive influx of cash from investments or something. I don't know that much about Chinese history in the past fifty years to say for sure.

But either It's not as if capitalism can't improve quality of life for some people. It's just that it's for, you know, -some- people.

Just so I'm clear on your position before proceeding, you believe that the free market reforms in China helped some people, but not others, and that is your rational for being generally against them?

[Seph]

You explicitly attribute China's improvements to market reforms where they have been implemented. Thus, it is implicit that you believe that market reforms would improve other areas if they were implemented in those areas. It is therefore further implicit that you believe the inverse.

Good things are the result of market reforms; bad things are the result of the lack of market reforms.

Everything you say is true.

Now, can you prove I'm wrong in regards to China?

[#FF0000]

Just so I'm clear on your position before proceeding, you believe that the free market reforms in China helped some people, but not others, and that is your rational for being generally against them?

No. I believe I have no idea what is going on in Northeast China.

[Nolan]

We know all this already. However, treatment of workers in many factories is simply disgusting, and one can't help but be skeptical about claims that migrant laborers have a better standard of living working in sweatshops under ridiculous contracts. Look into the recent labor struggles in China. Your average foreign student would never come in contact with this poverty - what we have essentially is the say-so of the Chinese state for anyone who's not obviously "middle class."

Another point - none of this growth could have happened without the conditions Mao created, such as a China unified under one state, an end to perpetual warlordism, and industrialization, or the control the Chinese state still exerts over the economy. Anyone will tell you China is still far from anything resembling the Western laissez-faire model. (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/09/why-china-works.html) One could argue it resembles corporatism.


Note that I am not a Maoist and consider Mao a buffoon.

[Seph]

No. I believe I have no idea what is going on in Northeast China.

What about China generally?

[#FF0000]

What about China generally?

Yeah. Shitty conditions. Business booming otherwise.

[anticap]

Everything you say is true.

Yes, I know. Those are the premises under which you operate, and you knew it when I first posted it. So why did you challenge me to "prove" what you were ready to concede?


Now, can you prove I'm wrong in regards to China?

I don't care to engage you on that. (You're new here, so I'll fill you in: we've already seen 1,001 threads just like this one.)

My only interest was in exposing the premises under which you operate, for the benefit of observers. Now that you have conceded, my work here is done.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My understanding is that while urban China has seen a boom in development, rural China... not so much.

[Seph]

We know all this already. However, treatment of workers in many factories is simply disgusting, and one can't help but be skeptical about claims that migrant laborers have a better standard of living working in sweatshops under ridiculous contracts.

A few points to consider:

-I am not trying to paint China as a utopia, or a place without problems. My only point is that China is better now with a limited free market, than it was with virtually no free market

-The plight of workers is in one sense real, but in another, very overstated. It is absolutely true that they work long hours for at best, average pay, (tales of unsafe work conditions and worker deaths are largely anecdotal) but its also true that these conditions are still miles better than what their fathers and grandfathers suffered under; thanks to limited free market reforms.



what we have essentially is the say-so of the Chinese state for anyone who's not obviously "middle class."

Could you explain? Im not sure I understand this statement.


Anyone will tell you China from anything resembling the Western laissez-faire model. One could argue it resembles corporatism.

My point was never that China was laissez-faire, only that because China is now more laissez-faire, the average citizen leads an unmistakably better life.

[#FF0000]

My point was never that China was laissez-faire, only that because China is now more laissez-faire, the average citizen leads an unmistakably better life.


Yeah but there are places where the opposite happens, so what's your point?

[Seph]

My understanding is that while urban China has seen a boom in development, rural China... not so much.

Basically true.

Rural China has seen 'improvements' only in the sense that starving to death is no longer a real possibility.

[Seph]

Yeah but there are places where the opposite happens, so what's your point?

Aside from anecdotal cases, this is simply not true, at least when it comes to China.

[#FF0000]

Aside from anecdotal cases, this is simply not true, at least when it comes to China.

No I'm talking about in general where liberal market reforms means a tougher living for working people.

[Seph]

No I'm talking about in general where liberal market reforms means a tougher living for working people.

Well what can I say, your rule seems to have encountered about 1 billion Chinese exceptions....

[#FF0000]

Well what can I say, your rule seems to have encountered about 1 billion Chinese exceptions....

I didn't say it was a rule. I'm just saying that for every place that market reforms "worked", they were detrimental to people.

[Seph]

I didn't say it was a rule. I'm just saying that for every place that market reforms "worked", they were detrimental to people.

So please, demonstrate to me exactly why it is that China's market reforms have, on net balance, hurt more "common" people than they have helped.

[#FF0000]

So please, demonstrate to me exactly why it is that China's market reforms have, on net balance, hurt more "common" people than they have helped.

I'm not talking about China.

[Seph]

I'm not talking about China.

Fair enough then.

[AK]

This was in the "worst leftist arguments" thread in chit-chat (?), but it sorta works for right-wingers, too, claiming capitalism is an overall better system when we look at life expectancy and quality of life (of course, they mean human progress, but it is not enough to claim that capitalism is great solely for this reason). However, this completely ignores the social inequality that an economic system (that is based on disproportionate allocations of social and economic power) such as capitalism creates. If we all had the potential to live 120 years, that would be great. But what use is it when you are economically enslaved to the Bourgeoisie for all those years and have very little control in the way of politics and the economy?

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh man the OP is bananas. The market reforms help boost an economy for a relative few, this could be millions, yes especially in the urban areas. But it also has a disastrous effect on the rural or urban poor. There is an uneven geographical development that spurs as a result of free market reforms with explosions of relative prosperity in the cities but also poverty in the rural areas. Then there is the issue of the migrant workers which China practically uses as a source for cheap labor. Not to mention the economic zones.

It should also be pointed out that China balanced the reforms with state spending so their economy wouldn't go to shit in the first couple of years ala Chile in 82.

Also like David Harvey notes in A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism, for every person that the reforms brought up in the urban areas, ten went down in the rural areas, and not to mention the crazy increase in economic disparity between rural and urban areas and the urban poor vs the rich. The introduction of billionaires is another key indicator of large concentrations of wealth due to the reforms.


but its also true that these conditions are still miles better than what their fathers and grandfathers suffered under; thanks to limited free market reforms.

:rolleyes: Depends on what your outlook of Maoist China was. Probably of utter despair and what not.

[Seph]

This was in the "worst leftist arguments" thread in chit-chat (?), but it sorta works for right-wingers, too, claiming capitalism is an overall better system when we look at life expectancy and quality of life (of course, they mean human progress, but it is not enough to claim that capitalism is great solely for this reason). However, this completely ignores the social inequality that an economic system (that is based on disproportionate allocations of social and economic power) such as capitalism creates. If we all had the potential to live 120 years, that would be great. But what use is it when you are economically enslaved to the Bourgeoisie for all those years and have very little control in the way of politics and the economy?

If you could direct me to my post where I stated that China was better based on life expectancy, and other statistics, I would be happy to edit it.

[AK]

If you could direct me to my post where I stated that China was better based on life expectancy, and other statistics, I would be happy to edit it.
Just look at your first post. Although you may have not said it exactly like that, you certainly implied it.

[#FF0000]

If you could direct me to my post where I stated that China was better based on life expectancy, and other statistics, I would be happy to edit it.

Well you said they lived better than they did 50 years ago, because of market reforms, and sort of inferred that, thus, market reforms were good.

[Raúl Duke]

This was in the "worst leftist arguments" thread in chit-chat (?), but it sorta works for right-wingers, too, claiming capitalism is an overall better system when we look at life expectancy and quality of life (of course, they mean human progress, but it is not enough to claim that capitalism is great solely for this reason). However, this completely ignores the social inequality that an economic system (that is based on disproportionate allocations of social and economic power) such as capitalism creates. If we all had the potential to live 120 years, that would be great. But what use is it when you are economically enslaved to the Bourgeoisie for all those years and have very little control in the way of politics and the economy?

Exactly this, the communist cause is not about "greater living standards" but about who is in control. We seek to end social inequality by abolishing class.

Let's assume that your anecdotes are correct, even if the conditions were "like Canada" that doesn't discount that there is wage gaps, poverty, homeless, migrants, etc in Canada. The first world living standards do not mean that everything is "wonderful" for those who are at the bottom, relative to those on the top.

[RadioRaheem84]

This was in the "worst leftist arguments" thread in chit-chat (?), but it sorta works for right-wingers, too, claiming capitalism is an overall better system when we look at life expectancy and quality of life (of course, they mean human progress, but it is not enough to claim that capitalism is great solely for this reason). However, this completely ignores the social inequality that an economic system (that is based on disproportionate allocations of social and economic power) such as capitalism creates. If we all had the potential to live 120 years, that would be great. But what use is it when you are economically enslaved to the Bourgeoisie for all those years and have very little control in the way of politics and the economy?

This is another thing that should be addressed. Our main goal as leftists is to change social relations, not just improve lives.

We could look at Sweden's Olaf Palme's days as an example of increased living standards and social democracy, etc. but the social relations in the workplace still remained. There was still a hierarchy and people were still subject to the whims of capitalists, hence why when it was cutting into their profits they decided to scale down the social programs gained through class struggle.

So, while a better standard of living is preferable, it is not our ultimate goal.

Cappies like to tout better living standards as a way to say that capitalism is an alright system but they forget that changes nothing and even shows that they do not understand our plight; we're not looking for a system that wraps around the economy and sucks it like a leech to pay for programs, we're looking for an entirely new system that fundamentally changes the social dynamics of society. A whole new system entirely. One without them!

[Seph]

Oh man the OP is bananas.

First sentence as an ad-hom attack. That's always indicative.




it also has a disastrous effect on the rural or urban poor.

You know, its interesting. Why is Beijing so much more modernized, than say, Harbin?

Because tax dollars and productivity are redirected from rural areas into modernizing more tourist-y cities.

Redirected by the state, of course. Congratulations, you have proved the exact opposite of what you set out to prove.


Then there is the issue of the migrant workers which China practically uses as a source for cheap labor.

And yet they are still better off than they were 40 years ago, what does that tell us?

For the umpteenth time, I am NOT out to prove that China is a free market paradise without problems, only that they have less problems than previously.



Not to mention the economic zones.

Yeah, how they're booming compared to the rest of country?

It should also be pointed out that China balanced the reforms with state spending so their economy wouldn't go to shit in the first couple of years ala Chile in 82.


for every person that the reforms brought up in the urban areas, ten went down in the rural areas

That's just factually incorrect. Flat out wrong. It's akin to stating Hitler didn't hate Jews, or the moon is made of cheese. It could only be stated by someone who is completely removed from any grounding in facts whatsoever.

Here's an idea. Come to China. Go to the rural areas. Talk to the people who, 40 years ago couldn't provide proper shoes for their children in the minus 30 degree winters. Then talk to their children and grandchildren about what kind of problems they face.

Talk to the factory workers who 30 years ago, had never seen a TV, and who now can afford to have one in their home.

Talk to the children who grew up playing with potatoes, for lack of any toys, and ask them what kind of cell phones they have.

I could go on and on.

[#FF0000]

I wish just one person in this entire thread would use sources, or at least that more would admit they're not using any.

[Seph]

Just look at your first post. Although you may have not said it exactly like that, you certainly implied it.

If that was how I came across, I'm genuinely sorry. Let me try to clarify. Here are five reasons why Chinese people are better off now:

1. Living conditions are more pleasant. (Air conditioning, cleanliness, modernized facilities, etc)

2. Jobs are less strenuous. (millions of workers no long have to work by hand in fields for hours on end)

3. Food is better, more plentiful and cheaper.

4. There are more (not a lot, yes, I know, butmore) job opportunities. (It used to be that after graduating, the state would place you in a job, and you had no say in the matter)

5. Clothing is more plentiful and cheaper. (The idea of being able to dress 'fashionably' would have been unheard of 40 years ago, when people were forced to be happy with anything that would simply provide adequate protection from the elements.)

[Seph]

I wish just one person in this entire thread would use sources, or at least that more would admit they're not using any.

I thought we'd been over this?

[Seph]

The first world living standards do not mean that everything is "wonderful" for those who are at the bottom, relative to those on the top.

For the umpteenth +1 time.....

I am not seeking to prove China is a paradise, or that injustice does not occur.

Just that China now, is better for the average Joe, than it was 40 years ago, thanks to market reforms.

That's it.

[#FF0000]

I thought we'd been over this?

I was talking about almost everyone else. At least you admit you're dealing with anecdotal evidence that may or may not be corroborated with actual statistics and facts.

[Seph]

I was talking about almost everyone else. At least you admit you're dealing with anecdotal evidence that may or may not be corroborated with actual statistics and facts.

Ah, sorry, I thought that was an veiled attack on me. Carry on then. :)

[RadioRaheem84]

Redirected by the state, of course.
Wait. Are you some right libertarian that uses the statism framework to debate?



Yeah, how they're booming compared to the rest of country?


What do you mean by booming? How is working twelve hour days in sweatshops booming? I am sure you're talking strictly numbers which benefit the wealthy. Boom /= workers better off.


And what of the actual economic regimes in China and India? One left-wing economist notes that "in the early stages of China's high growth period there was an expansion of state employment, including in the dynamic and crucial manufacturing sector . . . in its most recent phase, private capital accumulation dominates the growth process in China, although the state still strongly influences the pattern of investment through its control of the credit system and its policy of creating 'national champions' in sectors such as cars and steel." Not to mention, of course, its role in the labour market. There is no freedom to organise -- the country is, in effect, one big workplace and the state bosses do not tolerate freedom of association, assembly and speech any more than any other company. Unsurprisingly, labour discipline "is very harsh" and workers may find it difficult to change jobs and migrate to urban areas. [Andrew Glyn, Op. Cit., p. 87 and p. 94]

As one expert notes, in the case of both India and China "the main trade reforms took place after the onset of high growth. Moreover, these countries' trade restrictions remain among the highest in the world." In India, its "trend growth rate increased substantially in the early 1980s" while "serious trade reform did not start until 1991-93 . . . tariffs were actually higher in the rising growth period of the 1980s than in the low-growth 1970s." Thus claims of "the beneficial effects of trade liberalisation on poverty have to be seen as statements based on faith rather than evidence." [Dani Rodrik, Comments on 'Trade, Growth, and Poverty by D. Dollar and A. Kraay] As Chomsky notes, there is a deliberate policy which "muddles export orientation with neo-liberalism, so that if a billion Chinese experience high growth under export-orientated policies that radically violate neo-liberal principles, the increase in average global growth rates can be hailed as a triumph of the principles that are violated." [Op. Cit., p. 217] It should also be mentioned that both these states avoided the 1980s debt crisis by avoiding Western banks in the 1970s. They also maintain capital controls, so that hot money cannot flow freely in and out, and have large state sectors.

At least the Economist itself notes that "[n]either country is an exemplar of free market capitalism -- far from it." That says it all about the defenders of free market capitalism; they defend their ideas by pointing to countries which do not apply them!

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC10#secc101

[Seph]

RadioRaheem84,

Before we go any further, could you make an effort to understand the points Im trying to make.

Because the more you repeat "but some workers have bad conditions!", the more it's clear you're not attempting to understand.

[RadioRaheem84]

Not some workers. A lot. And it would help if you had a coherent position.

[Seph]

Not some workers. A lot. And it would help if you had a coherent position.

I have stated my core position at least 4 times already. Please, go back and re-read what has already been written.

[anticap]

Mmhph, I can't bite my lip any longer.

Historically, standards of living have gone up under systems that the OP would probably not want to endorse. (I won't list examples because I can't be bothered to go digging for sources. I'll rely on the OP's imagination and intellectual honesty.) That alone does not suffice as an argument for those systems. The same is true of capitalism.

How is this not blindingly obvious?

[Revolution starts with U]

"Most of the world is capitalist. And most of the world is poor." Perenti
"Of course capitalism works, for the few at the top." Chomsky?... I think
And uh, national socialism? Not exactly a very good representation of socialism (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_Karl_Marx_think_of_Capitalism)as it was envisioned. That would be like saying America now accurately represents the original constitution.
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence" - Marx


Capitalism can stimulate considerable growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies and capital equipment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Capital_equipment). Marx considered the capitalist class to be one of the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly improved the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Crisis_theory). He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx thought that during such an economic crisis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Economic_crisis) the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy.

The above was from Wikipedia
Mao != Marx
Try again buddy :thumbup1:

[Seph]

Mmhph, I can't bite my lip any longer.

Historically, standards of living have gone up under systems that the OP would probably not want to endorse. (I won't list examples because I can't be bothered to go digging for sources. I'll rely on the OP's imagination and intellectual honesty.) That alone does not suffice as an argument for those systems. The same is true of capitalism.

How is this not blindingly obvious?

I doubt I would agree with any historical examples you would bring up, but I do agree with your main point; that correlation does not equal causation.

In that vein, any facts, opinions or ideas you want to bring up which you feel proves that China has improved despite liberalization, I would love to hear.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7350677/Chinas-wealth-gap-the-widest-since-economic-reforms-began.html

Chinese workers will rise up again. :thumbup1:

[Seph]

The above was from Wikipedia
Mao != MarxTry again buddy :thumbup1:

I would respond, but I feel it would lead us too far astray, considering your post really had nothing to do with specifics to do with China, but was more a general "capitalism vs communism" thing, which I'm sure has already been done to death here:)

[Revolution starts with U]

For the umpteenth +1 time.....

I am not seeking to prove China is a paradise, or that injustice does not occur.

Just that China now, is better for the average Joe, than it was 40 years ago, thanks to market reforms.

That's it.
Proofs require a logical basis. I have yet to see yours, only anectdotal circumstance, easily cut apart by the corellation/causation fallacy.

Scientific proofs require objective observable data.

You are not trying to prove anything
I see you trollin, you hatin :laugh:

[Seph]

Chinese workers will rise up again. :thumbup1:

I guess that's a "no" then.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would respond, but I feel it would lead us too far astray, considering your post really had nothing to do with specifics to do with China, but was more a general "capitalism vs communism" thing, which I'm sure has already been done to death here:)

I am showing your argument as a fallacy to begin with. Perhaps you have a legitimate attack on Maoism, or national socialism in general, state capitalism, whatever you want to call it.
But it is by no means a legitimate attack on socialism, nor even marxism.
Good try tho ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

I would respond, but I feel it would lead us too far astray, considering your post really had nothing to do with specifics to do with China, but was more a general "capitalism vs communism" thing, which I'm sure has already been done to death here:)

Being that you admit the state had a large role to play here, and ergo the market could not have been solely the cause, perhaps you should be defending corporatism, or social-democracy, rather than free market capitalism...? :confused:
You wow'in me with yo fallacy

[Seph]

Scientific proofs require objective observable data.

Why am I not surprised to find out you're a logical positivist?

Anyways, please, cut me apart. That's why I'm here.

[#FF0000]

OI has the worst posters, fyi.

[RadioRaheem84]

JAY: They have a more positive view towards the Maoist period.

LI: Right. They are more positive. That’s right.

JAY: So you’re talking about things like there used to be more of a health care system for people than there is now and examples like that.

LI: In the Maoist period, for example, the people’s life expectancy increased from 35 years old around 1950s, and towards the end of Maoist period that’s increased to close to 70 years old. And so that’s a very dramatic change, probably the biggest increase in terms of life expectancy compared to other countries over the same length of period. And they also have developed some re-evaluation of the Cultural Revolution. So instead of the Chinese official point of view is that the Cultural Revolution has to be totally denied, it’s ten years of ten years of disaster, and they tend to emphasize that there have been many positive economic and social accomplishments.

JAY: For example? What are some of those positive examples? Because the picture that’s painted in the West of the Cultural Revolution is a sort of tyrannical, crazed period. That’s the way it’s painted for us.

LI: They actually cited the Chinese official statistics, population in the reform years. And so they used those statistically to argue that, in fact, China’s pace of industrialization had to be very rapid in the Cultural Revolution years. And, also, China had accomplished many technical achievements, including such as the hybridized rice. And China was not far behind the US at that time in term of computer development. And they also talk about the initial intention of Mao to start a Cultural Revolution had to do with trying to reverse the trends towards the emerging of a new, privileged bureaucratic caste, which would later lead to the development of capitalism. And they believe that has been, in fact, verified.

......


JAY: You were talking about the left trend that makes a somewhat positive comparison about the Maoist period to the current period. But certainly we’re being told, in terms of popular opinion polls and such, that at least in the urban centers, people’s standard of living is much higher now than then. The Olympics and other indicators seems to show there’s been a tremendous leap in technology in China. Most people would kind of shake their heads at such a comparison. Can you speak to that?

LI: In terms of the rising income for the urban sector, and certainly some among urban sector has benefited a lot from the market-oriented reform, from the capitalist development. Recently it has been reported that now China has something like 100 new billionaires. So that’s very dramatic change. But on the other hand, of course, social and economic inequality has also increased a lot. And in one of the earlier segments we talked about between 1 to 5 percent of population controlled about 70 percent of China’s financial wealth—that’s in term of wealth. And there’s another set of data suggesting that the richest 10 percent of the Chinese population earn about 50 percent, half, of China’s total national income, while the poorest 10 percent only has access to about 1 percent. So despite China’s dramatic economic growth, you still have about 200 million people living on a daily income less than one purchasing-power-parity dollar a day. And if you take into account other aspects of social change, if we do not measure and adjust by material consumption, you have to also take into account access to health care, access to education, general social condition, personal safety, environmental conditions, I would say you could have the bottom 10, 20, or even 30 percent of the population, their quality of life has actually deteriorated since the beginning of the market-oriented reform.


[I]LI: Well, I would not say that’s a real trend right now in the countryside, although it’s not just one; in fact, you have several thousands of village that refused to privatize at the beginning of the reform period and continue to maintain some kind of collective form of organization or community ownership. And some of them continue to be prosperous until today. But I’m talking about separate trend. I’m talking about some Maoist activists who have been active in workers movement, who have been active in workers resistance to privatization. And that’s another quite challenging trend for China’s current regime.

http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/minqi-li-on-chinas-new-left/

Chinese-born economist Minqi Li, who used to be a free market proponent.

[Seph]

Being that you admit the state had a large role to play here, and ergo the market could not have been solely the cause, perhaps you should be defending corporatism, or social-democracy, rather than free market capitalism...? :confused:
You wow'in me with yo fallacy

Perhaps you should listen (and look in the mirror) when your peers accuse me of confusing correlation with causation.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why am I not surprised to find out you're a logical positivist?

Anyways, please, cut me apart. That's why I'm here.

My school (science) is better than your school (pure reason) the children chanted as they dragged the world out of the dark ages :thumbup1:
Don't say Kant if you're talking about my Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon)!

[Seph]

My school (science) is better than your school (pure reason) the children chanted as they dragged the world out of the dark ages :thumbup1:
Don't say Kant if you're talking about my Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon)!

Right, well, when you feel the need to present a legitimate challenge to my OP, I'll be here.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, perhaps you should lay out a theory or something.
How about this; The average standard of living in america was much better in the 60s then than in the 1890s. Prove to me that wasn't because of the New Deal.
^ That's basically what you're argument is

[#FF0000]

Hey, perhaps you should lay out a theory or something.
How about this; The average standard of living in america was much better in the 60s then than in the 1890s. Prove to me that wasn't because of the New Deal.
^ That's basically what you're argument is

He's using a way smaller period of time.

[#FF0000]

Reading these responses makes me miss Demogorgon a lot.

[RadioRaheem84]

He's using a way smaller period of time.

Cut the time then. Same argument.

[#FF0000]

Cut the time then. Same argument.

Well, no. There were a lot of market reforms from the 60's on so.

[anticap]

I do agree with your main point; that correlation does not equal causation.

That's not my point. My point is just what I wrote: that rising standards of living do not alone justify economic or political systems.

To illustrate this for yourself, simply imagine the standard of living going up under a system that you find abhorrent, and then realize that this has actually happened numerous times. Next, imagine people arguing in favor of that system on that basis, and then realize that the argument is fallacious.

Correlation might very well imply causation, and yet my point would still stand.

[AK]

If that was how I came across, I'm genuinely sorry. Let me try to clarify. Here are five reasons why Chinese people are better off now:

1. Living conditions are more pleasant. (Air conditioning, cleanliness, modernized facilities, etc)

2. Jobs are less strenuous. (millions of workers no long have to work by hand in fields for hours on end)

3. Food is better, more plentiful and cheaper.

4. There are more (not a lot, yes, I know, butmore) job opportunities. (It used to be that after graduating, the state would place you in a job, and you had no say in the matter)

5. Clothing is more plentiful and cheaper. (The idea of being able to dress 'fashionably' would have been unheard of 40 years ago, when people were forced to be happy with anything that would simply provide adequate protection from the elements.)
All of these are good, yes, but what about those that still can't afford the wonderful food and clothes (take note of things like real wages) because they are too poor? Besides, you're still not addressing our primary argument, and that is of the social inequality that arises in class-based societies. Of course, living conditions and life expectancy are very important to us and can be used as an example to highlight inequalities in wealth distribution, but if we simply wanted the chance of some workers having good living conditions and life expectancy, we would be in favour of capitalism.*

*But it must also be noted that workers can only afford these things due to the continued exploitation of workers in less developed countries.

[Revolution starts with U]

Will Do :thumbup1:



After living in China and studying the language for a few years now, a number of truths have become obvious to me. I consider the following 3 points to be essentially non-debatable, meaning that while I am open to discuss possible interpretations of the facts, questioning the basic validity of facts themselves is akin to questioning whether or not the earth is round; only to be done by the dishonest and the ignorant.

Well, okay. I believe the world is flat, and any progress made is at the direction of evil shapeshifting space lizards. Any attempt to say otherwise would be like saying that things don't fall when you drop them.
Could you start with any more bias?

And if it makes a difference, I'm living in DongBei region which is the most traditionally communist and "most real Chinese" region left in the country. It really is a different world than Shanghai or even Beijing.
Appeal to authority fallacy. WHy should I believe a word you say?

[QUOTE]1. The average citizen's standard of living is relatively much closer to that of the average Canadian's (I'm from Canada) standard of living, than it was 40 years ago.
Proof?

This is not because of a regression on our part, but because of a relative gain on their part
Proof? I'll grant you this one, perhaps. But it is still an appeal to authority fallacy. Show me evidence, and define regression.


2. The average citizen's life is staggeringly better now, than it was just 30-50 years ago, even when accounting for natural progress in technology
Proof? And what is this "natural progress in technology?"


3.The above two points are either due to free market reforms, or sets of simply inconceivable coincidences.
I know what you think you mean by free market. But in reality, you mean state-capitalist reforms. As you have admitted, the state has played a large role.
(BTW, let me just put in here that I am an anarchist, and not a big fan of mao [tho I admittedly kno little])
You're arguments are;
based on little/no objective evidence
an appeal to authority
logically inconsistent.

[Seph]

Hey, perhaps you should lay out a theory or something.
How about this; The average standard of living in america was much better in the 60s then than in the 1890s. Prove to me that wasn't because of the New Deal.
^ That's basically what you're argument is

Let's try this from a different angle.

The instant China began to embrace free market aspects, their economy began to shoot up (for everyone).

This does not prove, 100%, that free markets are good, but it is interesting, because:

Since you claim that free markets are inherently bad, you must believe that

a) China hasnt really improved since it began to adopt free market reforms

or

b) China has drastically improved, starting in the late 70s and really accelerating in the 80s, despite free market reforms; that these advances would have been even bigger, had China not adopted any free market reforms, and that the timing is simply a coincidence.

So, are you "a" or are you "b"? How do you defend your particular position?

[Revolution starts with U]

Let's try this from a different angle.
Won't change anything, sure. You have to properly define your terms, and you are not yet willing to do that (state-capitalism != free market, and others).


The instant China began to embrace free market aspects, their economy began to shoot up (for everyone).
So did Russia under the Soviet Union. Stalinism works right? Alert the Washington Post.


This does not prove, 100%, that free markets are good, but it is interesting, because:
Thank you for joining the club :thumbup1:



Since you claim that free markets are inherently bad, you must believe that

Did I claim that?




So, are you "a" or are you "b"? How do you defend your particular position?

Like you said, I'm a logical positivist ;) I know shit about China, so I believe shit about China.
My position is that your argument is;
based on a fallacy,
based on little/no objective evidence
appeal to authority
logically inconsistent

[Seph]

WHy should I believe a word you say?

Fine! Don't!

I just feel that given my relatively unique position as a foreigner in rural China, who can speaking good Chinese, and who is interested in these kinds of issues, I could provide some, admittedly un sourced, first hand evidence.

You don't like it? Dont trust me? Fine. Don't post. I don't really care.



As you have admitted, the state has played a large role.

Large, but [B]]increasingly less so[/B.....which has been my entire point this whole time.

Always remember when arguing: "compared to what?"

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=Seph;1872848]Fine! Don't!

I just feel that given my relatively unique position as a foreigner in rural China, who can speaking good Chinese, and who is interested in these kinds of issues, I could provide some, admittedly un sourced, first hand evidence.

You don't like it? Dont trust me? Fine. Don't post. I don't really care.


First I will start by saying I believe you're 13, on your mom's computer, all pimply faced and just wasting time while that porno downloads. Any attempts to say otherwise would be akin to saying asians don't drive well.
Why should I believe you live in China?
I'm not asking this because I care about you. I'm asking this to show your fallacious argument is illegitimate and nonsensical.

Or you could just ignore all that and only post little 1 liner troll pellets. I'm down with that too ;)

[Seph]

All of these are good, yes, but what about those that still can't afford the wonderful food and clothes (take note of things like real wages) because they are too poor?

What about the fact that there are less of these people now, than there were under a more restricted system?



Besides, you're still not addressing our primary argument, and that is of the social inequality that arises in class-based societies. Of course, living conditions and life expectancy are very important to us and can be used as an example to highlight inequalities in wealth distribution, but if we simply wanted the chance of some workers having good living conditions and life expectancy, we would be in favour of capitalism.

I'd rather live in a system where the poor can buy small Tvs and the rich can buy big ones[1], than one where no one* can afford one at all[2].

1- Present day China

2-China 30 years ago

*Excepting Mao and his cronies.

[Revolution starts with U]

Btw, how can you speak good chinese (whatever that means) when you can't even speak english well?
Haha, I'm just kidding...
but seriously, things are good, you do things well

[Seph]

That's not my point. My point is just what I wrote: that rising standards of living do not alone justify economic or political systems.

So what does?

What is it about China from 1949-1976~ that you find so much better than current China?

[anticap]

So what does?

Is this your way of saying that, no matter what system I might name, if the standard of living rose under it then you would endorse that system?

[Revolution starts with U]

Perhaps I can refer you to this thread;
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-did-capitalism-t142053/index.html
It discusses "marx seen capitalism as progressive." That will show you that "If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” Are you speaking of Socialism, marxism, anarchism, maoism, state-capitalism, national socialism? Until you define your terms, your argument is a fallacy to begin with.
Second, your attempts to appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) and not suitable for rational discourse
Third, where is your objective proof? But, you're a logician, so I will let this one pass...
Fourth, your premises (free market reforms) are both poorly defined (remember) and arguably not true.
Fifth, you're conclusion does not neccesarily follow from said premises; correlation/causation fallacy, or Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

So, what exactly was your argument again?

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok, sry Best. How about this; Average american living standard was much better in 1959 than it was in 1929. Prove to me this wasn't because of the New Deal.
(Let it be known that is not a defense of the New Deal. Merely showing the argument as ridiculous to begin with.)

[Seph]

Is this your way of saying that, no matter what system I might name, if the standard of living rose under it then you would endorse that system?

No.

Now can you answer the question, please?

[anticap]

No.

Good, then you concede the point.


Now can you answer the question, please?

There's no need. The first one is no longer on the table as you've just conceded the point. The second one is of no relevance to me as I've not spoken in favor of China from 1949-1976.

[Revolution starts with U]

Damn, I missed that one. -10 logic points for me
China now > China 49-76 is a straw man.

[Seph]

Good, then you concede the point.

Not true.

I said I wouldn't assess whether or not to choose a system solely based on standard of living.

That is a far cry from saying standard of living is unimportant.

[Seph]

China now > China 49-76 is a straw man.

Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.

[anticap]

Not true.

I said I wouldn't assess whether or not to choose a system solely based on standard of living.

This, whether you realize it or not, is you conceding the point.


That is a far cry from saying standard of living is unimportant.

I've not said that the standard of living is unimportant. I've said that a rising standard of living does not alone justify a system.

Really, you ought to hold yourself to the same standards that you expect from others, and that includes not misrepresenting what I've said even after I've repeated it several times.

[¿Que?]

After living in China and studying the language for a few years now, a number of truths have become obvious to me. I consider the following 3 points to be essentially non-debatable, meaning that while I am open to discuss possible interpretations of the facts, questioning the basic validity of facts themselves is akin to questioning whether or not the earth is round; only to be done by the dishonest and the ignorant.

And if it makes a difference, I'm living in DongBei region which is the most traditionally communist and "most real Chinese" region left in the country. It really is a different world than Shanghai or even Beijing.

1. The average citizen's standard of living is relatively much closer to that of the average Canadian's (I'm from Canada) standard of living, than it was 40 years ago. This is not because of a regression on our part, but because of a relative gain on their part.

2. The average citizen's life is staggeringly better now, than it was just 30-50 years ago, even when accounting for natural progress in technology.

3.The above two points are either due to free market reforms, or sets of simply inconceivable coincidences.

So please, lets hear your theories.
A small minority at the top could improve their conditions significantly, without any equivalent significant improvement in the conditions the bottom many live in, and the "average" would increase.

So you have to make a case that this average improvement is not predominantly the result of a few people benefiting from market reforms, driving the average up, while the majority of people remain in wretched conditions.

In other words, you have to prove that with the increase in average standard of living, there was an equally significant decrease in economic inequality, or else your not really saying anything important.

[Seph]

This, whether you realize it or not, is you conceding the point.

Ok, you're right, I concede.

Does this mean you admit that the standard of living in China is higher under more capitalism, than under less?

[Seph]

A small minority at the top could improve their conditions significantly, without any equivalent significant improvement in the conditions the bottom many live in, and the "average" would increase.

So you have to make a case that this average improvement is not predominantly the result of a few people benefiting from market reforms, driving the average up, while the majority of people remain in wretched conditions.

In other words, you have to prove that with the increase in average standard of living, there was an equally significant decrease in economic inequality, or else your not really saying anything important.

I could not agree more. Have you read the whole thread? I make the case that the average Chinese citizen is much better off several times, I'd be happy to do it again/expand, if you find it insufficient in some way.

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.
YOu have yet to address any of my posts substantially. It is quickly becoming clear how little you respect rational discourse.
You assume we all support Maoist/pre-reform China, and have thought you can smash the theory of socialism based on this mischaracterization of (many) of our positions... you know what they call that... a straw man argument.
Again;
define your terms
stop appealing to authority
end your correlation/causation fallacy
provide evidence that your premises are true
logically make your conclusion follow from said premises

you have yet to do any of that

[Revolution starts with U]

I could not agree more. Have you read the whole thread? I make the case that the average Chinese citizen is much better off several times, I'd be happy to do it again/expand, if you find it insufficient in some way.
What case, your ad hoc, illogical ambiguity?
Hardly an argument possesing any kind of intellectual rigor :rolleyes:

[¿Que?]

I could not agree more. Have you read the whole thread? I make the case that the average Chinese citizen is much better off several times, I'd be happy to do it again/expand, if you find it insufficient in some way.
I don't think it's necessary for me to read the whole thread to answer what you originally posted. It is generally considered indisputable that market reforms introduced greater economic disparities in China. It is possible that this could happen, even while average standard of living increases, and I have explained why in my previous post.

I don't think it necessary for you to expand your argument, as it is clear that I understood it the first time. However, you seem to be avoiding any meaningful response to the critique I made of that argument.

[Seph]

I don't think it's necessary for me to read the whole thread to answer what you originally posted.

I'm asking you to read the whole thread to get the answer to your question, which had already been posed by several others, so that I dont have to spend time writing out the same thing.

[anticap]

Ok, you're right, I concede.

Does this mean you admit that the standard of living in China is higher under more capitalism, than under less?

Does your concession mean that? No. Why would it?

My point has been, and remains, that an increase in the standard of living does not alone justify a system. It wouldn't matter if the Chinese were living like demigods in ivory towers; the point stands. The reason this is true is because there might be other reasons for rejecting a system in spite of the increase. You've conceded this because you know that standards of living have increased under systems that you find abhorrent, and you don't want to be backed into a corner and forced to endorse those systems on that basis.

Having beaten that horse to death, and finally extracting yet another concession from you, I see no reason to start playing by your rules.

[Seph]

You've conceded this because you know that standards of living have increased under systems that you find abhorrent, and you don't want to be backed into a corner and forced to endorse those systems on that basis.

No, I conceded because I was hoping to get you back on the original topic of the thread.

Seeing as how that failed, I'm not sure how to continue from here.

[anticap]

No, I conceded because I was hoping to get you back on the original topic of the thread.

Seeing as how that failed, I'm not sure how to continue from here.

We don't, if you intend to keep wasting both our time.

If you intend to start taking things seriously then you can either concede, or explain why you refuse to concede, that rising standards of living do not alone justify systems because there may be other reasons for rejecting those systems.

[Seph]

that rising standards of living do not alone justify systems because there may be other reasons for rejecting those systems.

Start a new thread if you want. PM me. I'll discuss it with you either way.

[Revolution starts with U]

From Wikipedia


Before 1949 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/1949) the Chinese economy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Economic_history_of_China) was characterized by widespread poverty (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Poverty), extreme income (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Income) inequalities, and endemic insecurity of livelihood (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Livelihood). By means of centralized economic planning, the People's Republic was able to redistribute national income so as to provide the entire population with at least the minimal necessities of life (except during the "three bad years" of 1959, 1960, and 1961) and to consistently allocate a relatively high proportion of national income to productive investment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Investment). Equally important to the quality of life (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Quality_of_life) were the results of mass public health (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Public_health) and sanitation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sanitation) campaigns, which rid the country of most of the conditions that had bred epidemics (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Epidemic) and lingering disease (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Disease)in the past. The most concrete evidence of improved living standards was that average national life expectancy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Life_expectancy) more than doubled, rising from around thirty-two years in 1949 to sixty-nine years in 1985

Are you a maoist now?
Farther down you find


Until the end of the 1970s, the fruits of economic growth were largely negated by population (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Demographics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) increases, which prevented significant advances in the per capita (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Per_capita) availability of food, clothing, and housing beyond levels achieved in the 1950s

Which severely puts a damper in applying causality to your premises
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DI18Ad04.html
There's an article supporting your position that the standard of living is up in China.
Here's


During the 15th National Communist Party Congress (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Congress_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China) that met in September 1997, President Jiang Zemin (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jiang_Zemin) announced plans to sell, merge, or close the vast majority of SOEs in his call for increased "non-public ownership" (feigongyou or privatization (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Privatization) in euphemistic terms). The 9th National People's Congress (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/9th_National_People%27s_Congress) endorsed the plans at its March 1998 session

followed by


In 2000, China claimed success in its three year effort to make the majority of large state owned enterprises (SOEs) profitable

Not exactly free market.


Legislators also indicated there would be a new emphasis on certain aspects of overall government economic policy (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Economic_policy), including efforts to reduce unemployment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Unemployment) (now in the 8–10% range in urban areas), to rebalance income distribution (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Income_distribution) between urban and rural regions, and to maintain economic growth while protecting the environment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Environmental_protection) and improving social equity (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Equality_of_opportunity)

Even a quick glance over confirming your facts should show you that you need to define your terms and structure your argument.

[anticap]

Start a new thread if you want. PM me. I'll discuss it with you either way.

If you'll go back and re-read the whole thread (as you've asked others to do when you believe that they've lost track) then you'll find that my persistence is warranted here in this thread because my point is directly relevant to it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Is it safe to assume your argument is;
Trust me, I know this is the internet, but I live in China.
The standard of living is up in china, I can tell by looking around.
Market reforms have been enacted.
Therefore, the rising standard of living is due to market reforms?

So, then you're a social-democrat? Because that seems to be the way China is going. You're obviously not a free market capitalist, or you wouldn't see these reforms as very free markety.
I don't get it, do you think all socialists are stalinists and maoists (probably even concurrently)? Or where you specifically looking for Maoists, and not revlefters in general?

[Seph]

If you'll go back and re-read the whole thread (as you've asked others to do when you believe that they've lost track) then you'll find that my persistence is warranted here in this thread because my point is directly relevant to it.

Your point is not relevant to this thread. You're trying to set up a means for justifying one system over another, I'm just trying to state the results of one system as compared to another. In this case, China's totally unfree market to China's marginally free market.

[Revolution starts with U]

Good. So, we have established you are very much in favor of social-democracy/corporatism.
A cursory study of china's economy shows these are far from free market reforms, for the most part.
What school of capitalism are you arguing from; smith, austrian, chicago, keynes, neo-keynes, neo-liberal?

[¿Que?]

I'm asking you to read the whole thread to get the answer to your question, which had already been posed by several others, so that I dont have to spend time writing out the same thing.
I see that some people have made similar arguments that I have made, but they were not identical, so rather than misinterpret your response, maybe you can provide a link, so I can at least know specifically what you're referring to.

[anticap]

Your point is not relevant to this thread. You're trying to set up a means for justifying one system over another

Yes it is, and no I'm not. To the contrary, I'm trying to show you that you can't justify one system over another based on your criteria alone.

You really haven't been paying attention. At this point I don't know whether to think that you're a troll or just dense, but I've repeated myself multiple times now and I won't do it again.

[Seph]

I see that some people have made similar arguments that I have made, but they were not identical, so rather than misinterpret your response, maybe you can provide a link, so I can at least know specifically what you're referring to.

Here are some quotes I've made where I speak to the general improvement in China.


"A few points to consider:

-I am not trying to paint China as a utopia, or a place without problems. My only point is that China is better now with a limited free market, than it was with virtually no free market

-The plight of workers is in one sense real, but in another, very overstated. It is absolutely true that they work long hours for at best, average pay, (tales of unsafe work conditions and worker deaths are largely anecdotal) but its also true that these conditions are still miles better than what their fathers and grandfathers suffered under; thanks to limited free market reforms."


"My point was never that China was laissez-faire, only that because China is now more laissez-faire, the average citizen leads an unmistakably better life."


"You know, its interesting. Why is Beijing so much more modernized, than say, Harbin?

Because tax dollars and productivity are redirected from rural areas into modernizing more tourist-y cities."


"If that was how I came across, I'm genuinely sorry. Let me try to clarify. Here are five reasons why Chinese people are better off now:

1. Living conditions are more pleasant. (Air conditioning, cleanliness, modernized facilities, etc)

2. Jobs are less strenuous. (millions of workers no long have to work by hand in fields for hours on end)

3. Food is better, more plentiful and cheaper.

4. There are more (not a lot, yes, I know, butmore) job opportunities. (It used to be that after graduating, the state would place you in a job, and you had no say in the matter)

5. Clothing is more plentiful and cheaper. (The idea of being able to dress 'fashionably' would have been unheard of 40 years ago, when people were forced to be happy with anything that would simply provide adequate protection from the elements.)"


"I'd rather live in a system where the poor can buy small Tvs and the rich can buy big ones[1], than one where no one* can afford one at all[2].

1- Present day China

2-China 30 years ago

*Excepting Mao and his cronies."

Finally, even in China what I'm saying isn't really a controversial statement. I've had 3 or 4 Chinese people openly state that Chinese people were very very poor 40 years ago, but since then, they've become a much more wealthy country. This is the common view among Chinese people.....

[Seph]

Yes it is, and no I'm not. To the contrary, I'm trying to show you that you can't justify one system over another based on your criteria alone.

I'm not interested in justifying one system over another. (At least not here)

I'm interested in proving one leads to much better lives for everyone. It's always been up to you whether or not you want to use that as a basis to accept or reject certain systems.

[¿Que?]

Finally, even in China what I'm saying isn't really a controversial statement. I've had 3 or 4 Chinese people openly state that Chinese people were very very poor 40 years ago, but since then, they've become a much more wealthy country. This is the common view among Chinese people.....
Yes, but some are more equal-eh-I mean to say wealthy than others, don't you think?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm interested in proving one leads to much better lives for everyone
So your argument is social-republicanism is more progressive than pure Maoism?
I think the historical analysis would agree with that. No arguments here.
This really says little about capitalism v socialism tho, I hope you understand that.
I am honestly curious as to how you define these two things.

EDIT: When I say more progressive, I imagine it is far from what you think I mean. You don't take into account just how progressive Maoism was. But, being that it was a revolution against feudalism, and not capitalism as envisaged by Marx (et. al.), it is not quite as true to socialism. I have provided evidence to you that Marx considered markets necessary to the development of socialism, yet you have repeatedly ignored that.

[anticap]

It's always been up to you whether or not you want to use that as a basis to accept or reject certain systems.

It's always been up to you whether or not you want to accept that there may be reasons for rejecting certain systems in spite of perceived gains in one area.

What you're not understanding, despite several people attempting to explain it to you several times and in several different ways, is that we oppose capitalism for reasons completely separate from its capacity to produce.

[Seph]

Yes, but some are more equal-eh-I mean to say wealthy than others, don't you think?

Yes. 95% of those are government bureaucrats.

But let's assume they aren't.

What's better?

1) A society where some eat well, live well and take the bus, while some people eat fantastically, live extravagantly and drive a car.

or

2) A society where everyone lives nice and equally- all just above subsistence level. (Except for high level officials of course)

Now, 1 isnt perfect, but its still better than 2.

Just as current day China isnt perfect, but its still preferable to the China of 40 years ago.

Want perfection? Totally liberalize the economy and watch the bureaucrats have to compete with the regular citizens, instead of constraining them.

[Revolution starts with U]

1) A society where some eat well, live well and take the bus, while some people eat fantastically, live extravagantly and drive a car.

or

2) A society where everyone lives nice and equally- all just above subsistence level. (Except for high level officials of course)

Now, 1 isnt perfect, but its still better than 2.

Just as current day China isnt perfect, but its still preferable to the China of 40 years ago.


or 3) A society where mostly everyone lives poor, most children die before they can walk. Sickness and starvation are rampant. Wealthy feudal landowners live extravagantly compared to everyone else.

As has been explained you repeatedly disconnect Mao from his historical period (and I'm not even a Maoist.. wtf?!)

[Seph]

What you're not understanding, despite several people attempting to explain it to you several times and in several different ways, is that we oppose capitalism for reasons completely separate from its capacity to produce.

I understand your opinion, but this thread is not intended to debate it.

I wouldn't go into a thread about the history of Cuba and use it to promote Rothbard's work on the great depression, so please don't come in here when I'm trying to show that liberalization in China has lead to a higher standard of living for the average Joe, and argue about what are good and bad methods of determining how to choose economic systems! Thanks.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok, and what of it?
I have showed that Maoist statism (social-republicanism, in my terms) lead to a significantly higher standard of living compared to pre-Mao China.
I have showed that Marx considered markets as necessary to the development of socialism.
I have showed that China's market reforms are anything but free market reforms.
I have showed that you have not made any kind of intellectually coherent argument.
So, what exactly are you here for? :confused:

[La Comédie Noire]

I find nothing controversial about what the OP is saying. When a country industrializes things tend to get better. But saying you are relatively better off then people were 50 years ago is poor compensation for present concerns.

If the growing labor movement is anything to go by, the Chinese working class doesn't expect to just be handed things by the bounties of the free market nor are they placated by how much better off they were then their predecessors.

[anticap]

I understand your opinion, but this thread is not intended to debate it.

I wouldn't go into a thread about the history of Cuba and use it to promote Rothbard's work on the great depression, so please don't come in here when I'm trying to show that liberalization in China has lead to a higher standard of living for the average Joe, and argue about what are good and bad methods of determining how to choose economic systems! Thanks.

Our objections are entirely appropriate and relevant whether you foam at the mouth in protest or not.

You can't just float in here and drop a turd and expect us to simply eat it up so that you can smugly float away. No, we're going to stop you and explain to you that increases in the standard of living cannot be viewed in a vacuum because there are other aspects to capitalism that must be considered.

[Seph]

I find nothing controversial about what the OP is saying. When a country industrializes things tend to get better. But saying you are relatively better off then people were 50 years ago is poor compensation for present concerns.

If the growing labor movement is anything to go by, the Chinese working class doesn't expect to just be handed things by the bounties of the free market nor are they placated by how much better off they were then their predecessors.

So the fact that things have generally gotten better because of a more free market attitude doesn't seem....at odds with your general views?

[Revolution starts with U]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You are incredibly dense....
:laugh::laugh::laugh: :cool:

[Seph]

Our objections are entirely appropriate and relevant whether you foam at the mouth in protest or not.

You can't just float in here and drop a turd and expect us to simply eat it up so that you can smugly float away. No, we're going to stop you and explain to you that increases in the standard of living cannot be viewed in a vacuum because there are other aspects to capitalism that must be considered.

At this point I think we're just talking past each other. Have a good day:)

[Revolution starts with U]

We've listened to and rebutted your points. It is not us talking past you, I assure you.
It's too bad you didn't get the foaming at the mouth defense of Mao you were expecting... :crying:

[¿Que?]

Yes. 95% of those are government bureaucrats.

But let's assume they aren't.

What's better?

1) A society where some eat well, live well and take the bus, while some people eat fantastically, live extravagantly and drive a car.

or

2) A society where everyone lives nice and equally- all just above subsistence level. (Except for high level officials of course)

Now, 1 isnt perfect, but its still better than 2.

Just as current day China isnt perfect, but its still preferable to the China of 40 years ago.

Want perfection? Totally liberalize the economy and watch the bureaucrats have to compete with the regular citizens, instead of constraining them.
Fair enough. I think if you can prove that Maoist China was a true dictatorship of the proletariat, then I think we have a winner! Good Luck!

[La Comédie Noire]

So the fact that things have generally gotten better because of a more free market attitude doesn't seem....at odds with your general views?

It is uncontroversial that an influx of capital will improve the well being of everyone. Whether that's done under a market economy or a state despotism is dependent on the material conditions of the country in question. However, it will not be communism, it will be as Karl Marx called it "Prussian Socialism" or the "equalization of misery."

Communism is not possible till the material conditions are met to make a fair and equal distribution of wealth plausible and preferable. You wrongly assume I value Mao's China as something more than a historical phase in China's transition to a modern economy.

I don't.

[Seph]

Fair enough. I think if you can prove that Maoist China was a true dictatorship of the proletariat, then I think we have a winner! Good Luck!

I know I can prove Maoist China was more centrally planned than current day China.

If you oppose central planning, then I guess we're on the same side.

If you don't, then get explaining!

[Revolution starts with U]

Omg your fallacoius arguments.
Why do you assume socialism = central planning (stop setting up your own unknowledgeable straw man to knock down)?
Why do you disconnect Mao from his history but not modern China from its? Why do you disconnect anything from it's history?


I know I can (and have, yet you have offered nothing but anecdotes) prove that feudal china was far less centrally planned than current day China.
If you support central planning, then I guess we're on the same side (sic).
If you don't, then get explaining!

:bored:

[Seph]

It is uncontroversial that an influx of capital will improve the well being of everyone. Whether that's done under a market economy or a state despotism is dependent on the material conditions of the country in question.

So it was just a coincidence thatas soon as China began to introduce market reforms, that small amounts of capital accumulation finally began to occur?

That's a mighty coincidence.



You wrongly assume I value Mao's China as something more than a historical phase in China's transition to a modern economy.

Mao's China wasn't even that. It was what every centrally planned state is and must be - an abomination where the masses are oppressed, the individual is suppressed; all for the benefit of a few demagogues who want to live off of the fruits of others.

China had central planning. It failed. Because China brought in minimal markets, things improved. For everyone. No amount of justification, wordplay or excuses will get you around this damning fact.

[¿Que?]

I know I can prove Maoist China was more centrally planned than current day China.

If you oppose central planning, then I guess we're on the same side.

If you don't, then get explaining!
I am in principle against central planning. However, I do believe that certain times it is necessary for the common good for certain services to be provided at net loss in profit. This is only possible if there is some degree of central planning and thus assumes a society where a certain degree of market conditions exists.

BTW, why do you keep ignoring Revolution starts with U (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30252)?

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, you're obviously not even reading my posts anymore...
IDK, maybe he ignored me.. if that's possible :confused:
Either that or he is just intellectually dishonest. Whatever, I'm off to other pursuits.

[Seph]

I am in principle against central planning. However, I do believe that certain times it is necessary for the common good for certain services to be provided at net loss in profit. This is only possible if there is some degree of central planning and thus assumes a society where a certain degree of market conditions exists.

So are you in agreement with me that, at the very minimum, a partially free market society will have a high living standard for all, than a totally centrally planned one?

[La Comédie Noire]

So it was just a coincidence thatas soon as China began to introduce market reforms, that small amounts of capital accumulation finally began to occur?

That's a mighty coincidence.

No, but it is interesting to note China's strong state allows it to negotiate a deal with foreign capital where it isn't taken advantage of entirely.


Mao's China wasn't even that. It was what every centrally planned state is and must be - an abomination where the masses are oppressed, the individual is suppressed; all for the benefit of a few demagogues who want to live off of the fruits of others.

But people were living better in 1965 than they were in 1905!



China had central planning. It failed. Because China brought in minimal markets, things improved. For everyone. No amount of justification, wordplay or excuses will get you around this damning fact.

So I guess you aren't against economic slavery as long as it pays well? I think you should write up some fliers and distribute them at the next miner's strike in China, I'm sure they'll be glad to know they are better off than their ancestors were.

[¿Que?]

So are you in agreement with me that, at the very minimum, a partially free market society will have a high living standard for all, than a totally centrally planned one?
No, I am saying that a partially centralized economy will provide necessary services which could not exist in a totally liberalized market.

EDIT: I gotta go to sleep. I'll be back in about 8 hours.

[Revolution starts with U]

So I guess you aren't against economic slavery as long as it pays well?
That's generally how Rothbardians view it (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18208.aspx)

[Seph]

No, but it is interesting to note China's strong state allows it to negotiate a deal with foreign capital where it isn't taken advantage of entirely.

That's all I needed to know. You just admitted that it is possible and has happened, where more capitalism has been beneficial.



But people were living better in 1965 than they were in 1905!

Many tribal Africans are living better today than ancient Egyptians.

That proves....?



I think you should write up some fliers and distribute them at the next miner's strike in China, I'm sure they'll be glad to know they are better off than their ancestors were.

For the umpteenth +2 time. I am not claiming China is perfect, or without problems. Your previous admittance that more capitalism has meant relatively more prosperity for everyone, was my main goal.

[Seph]

No, I am saying that a partially centralized economy will provide necessary services which could not exist in a totally liberalized market.

I don't agree, but am not really interested in debating that point here.

My point is that you agree, (by saying "partially centralized") that:

A point on one side of the spectrum can be reached, where more central planning is better than less.

and

A point on the opposite side of the spectrum can be reached, where more free markets are better than less.

Am I basically correct in stating that this is your view?

[La Comédie Noire]

That's all I needed to know. You just admitted that it is possible and has happened, where more capitalism has been beneficial.

Well to quote you:



Many tribal Africans are living better today than ancient Egyptians.

That proves....?

[Seph]

Well to quote you:

Except, as you have already conceded, China is better because of increased free markets, not in spite of them.

Modern day tribal Africa is better than ancient Egypt in spite of itself, not because of it.

[La Comédie Noire]

Actually I said it is uncontroversial that an influx of capital will lead to a better standard of living for everyone. China got this through foreign investment, but it was able to negotiate a much better deal than other countries because of its strong state. China is just doing what everyone else has to do under capitalism, sell themselves to capitalists.

I don't think you understand the argument as well as you think you do.

[Seph]

Actually I said it is uncontroversial that an influx of capital will lead to a better standard of living for everyone. China got this through foreign investment, but it was able to negotiate a much better deal than other countries because of its strong state. China is just doing what everyone else has to do under capitalism, sell themselves to capitalists.

I don't think you understand the argument as well as you think you do.

Whether or not the process you described (the state acting as a beneficiary with regards to capital investment) actually exists, the fact still remains:

A process which you admit was generally good, was caused, at least in part, by more free markets and not less.

Grant the state all its wonderful abilities to oversee the free market if you want, it doesn't fundamentally alter the fact that the above statement is totally at odds with what I assume you believe.

[La Comédie Noire]

It's probably never crossed your mind to ask how a certain group of people were able to accumulate so much wealth in the first place. So much so, that they can determine the material well being of a billion human beings.

But alas, for you the market is an exchange between buyers and sellers who are on equal footing.

[Seph]

It's probably never crossed your mind to ask how a certain group of people were able to accumulate so much wealth in the first place. So much so, that they can determine the material well being of a billion human beings.

And it probably never crossed your mind as to why those billion were so much poorer in the first place.

But that's not the point.

You're still dancing around the fact that you admitted that some degree of free markets, can be better than central planning.

[La Comédie Noire]

Who said I advocated central planning? I'd also like to add corporations are centrally planned.

[Seph]

Who said I advocated central planning? I'd also like to add corporations are centrally planned.

You don't advocate central planning by a state/government? You think that free markets are better than this?

I seem to have you pegged all wrong.

[La Comédie Noire]

No, I'm more of a council communist/anarchist.

For what it's worth, here's a critique from the anarchist Faq on the assumptions that mainstream economists make.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html

There's also a section on the false dichotomy between statism and free markets.

[Seph]

No, I'm more of a council communist/anarchist.

So it would be fair to state what while you do not approve of either China's current mixed economy, or its previous, basically completely state managed one, you find its current one to be at least a bit better?

Also, for what its worth, I'm hardly a supporter of mainstream economics.

[Dean]

My point was never that China was laissez-faire, only that because China is now more laissez-faire, the average citizen leads an unmistakably better life.
Sometimes value is exploited to the benefit of some regions and at the loss of other regions. I've read some articles about China which explain in simple terms how its happening in a few places. Don't know if it was about Dongbei though.

[Seph]

Sometimes value is exploited to the benefit of some regions and at the loss of other regions. I've read some articles about China which explain in simple terms how its happening in a few places. Don't know if it was about Dongbei though.

Not sure if I've mentioned it earlier, but this is definitely the case. Compare cities like Harbin and Shenyang to Beijing, for example. A world of difference, thanks to goodness knows how many dollars being diverted from all over the country into Beijing, to make it nice and modernized for tourists. I'm telling you, its like two different worlds.

Two key point to make regarding this, however:

1) It's all the governments doing, certainly no fault of free markets. Quite the opposite, it's a lack of them.

2) Even despite this, the 'losing' regions are still better off than they were under complete state control than they are now.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why are people still amusing this troll? He has done nothing but set up his own straw man to knock down, and shown a completel lack of understanding of socialist theory. He has repeatedly refused to acknowledge key rebuttals of his trollery, and even continued to comment on things as if he hadn't already been given the answer.
It is obvoius this gentleman is far from here for rational discourse. Just a silly little austrian who thinks he can 1 up those socialist slave-drivers.
READ A BOOK NIGGA! :laugh:

[Dean]

1) It's all the governments doing, certainly no fault of free markets. Quite the opposite, it's a lack of them.
Yes, and we know the government never acts at the behest of free markets, and in the latter, economic leverage never plays a role in the expropriation of value!

You have no way of proving that the state is the only generator of all net expropriation. In fact, the point is absurd, because we know the interests of private individuals and companies play a role in this, and the market can't exist without a state. So even for the sake of argument - assuming your example was correct - it is only in the expropriation of labor-value into alienated commodities and then currency which allows this exploitation. And these are facts of the market.


2) Even despite this, the 'losing' regions are still better off than they were under complete state control than they are now.
You have used the conjunction than twice here, and furthermore, it looks like you're saying that "they were better off" for both cases.

Whatever the case, it is exactly the self-interested management of the means of production, by private owners (including state actors who manage important facts of the economy) that causes the expropriation of value. The market does not in any way alleviate this transference of wealth; rather, it provides a medium over which the accumulation of these assets can be intensified.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ginni Index:

Maoist China: 0.18 (one of the most equal countries in the world)

China today: 0.50 (one of the most unequal countries in the world)

Thus from a proletarian perspective China has degenerated.

[#FF0000]

Ginni Index:

Maoist China: 0.18 (one of the most equal countries in the world)

China today: 0.50 (one of the most unequal countries in the world)

Thus from a proletarian perspective China has degenerated.

What is this from?

[Queercommie Girl]

Not sure if I've mentioned it earlier, but this is definitely the case. Compare cities like Harbin and Shenyang to Beijing, for example. A world of difference, thanks to goodness knows how many dollars being diverted from all over the country into Beijing, to make it nice and modernized for tourists. I'm telling you, its like two different worlds.


China isn't a "tourist paradise" for Westerners to fetish over.

While sectors like tourism have grown, Basic agricultural, industrial and educational infrastructures have literally declined in China. The environment is getting worse by the day, and many sections of the irrigation network seriously lack repair work. In rural areas, many schools have been closed. The number of people who are illiterate in China have actually grown in recent years. (And this is not from a leftist source, but a source from the BBC)

Just "looking better" means nothing.



Two key point to make regarding this, however:

1) It's all the governments doing, certainly no fault of free markets. Quite the opposite, it's a lack of them.

2) Even despite this, the 'losing' regions are still better off than they were under complete state control than they are now.

You would believe in free markets as opposed to socialism if you care more about growth than equality, more about abstract monetary growth than concrete improvements in real productivity, and take the social darwinist view that those who are less able shouldn't have as much of a chance at survival and prosperity as those who are more able.

In Mao's China, there was the "iron rice bowl", which means workers can't be fired, and are guaranteed a basic salary, cheap public housing and healthcare even if he is a "lazy bastard" who does little work. Now in China for most workers if you don't work for more than 10 hours a day you can't earn enough to live on, and even the majority of relatively high-earning white-collar workers cannot afford to buy their own house, since the property market has been so artificially inflated by big capitalists. If you just can't take the workload anymore and literally commit suicide like those super-exploited workers at Foxconn, the social darwinist Chinese right-wing press calls you "weak willed" rather than blame the capitalists.

In short, if you are one of those people who glorify in "survival of the fittest" law of the jungle style, you are certainly not a socialist and you shouldn't really be here. Socialism is for those who care more about equality and solidarity than abstract economic growth.

[Queercommie Girl]

What is this from?

You can get this kind of data easily from many places, even bourgeois sources.

[Dean]

You would believe in free markets as opposed to socialism if you care more about growth than equality, more about abstract monetary growth than concrete improvements in real productivity, and take the social darwinist view that those who are less able shouldn't have as much of a chance at survival and prosperity as those who are more able.
This is a very good point thats easily to lose sight of in all the mystifications propagated by the right-wing economists.

[La Comédie Noire]

So it would be fair to state what while you do not approve of either China's current mixed economy, or its previous, basically completely state managed one, you find its current one to be at least a bit better?

Also, for what its worth, I'm hardly a supporter of mainstream economics. Better for some, worse for others. The point is it's not because markets are this magical system that suddenly makes things work, it's because the Chinese were in conditions that forced them to sell themselves cheaply to western capitalists.


While sectors like tourism have grown, Basic agricultural, industrial and educational infrastructures have literally declined in China. The environment is getting worse by the day, and many sections of the irrigation network seriously lack repair work. In rural areas, many schools have been closed. The number of people who are illiterate in China have actually grown in recent years. (And this is not from a leftist source, but a source from the BBC)

Capitalists have a real problem with infrastructure, it's a necessary evil to them. Taking care of people is so not what markets were made for.

[#FF0000]

You can get this kind of data easily from many places, even bourgeois sources.

Where did you get those numbers, specifically?

[Bud Struggle]

What is this from?

Ginni's his girlfriend. :)

[rednordman]

To put it simple, I think its pretty obvious that life is better now, because right now, China has the whole world pouring billions into its economy. It doesnt matter whether it is a marxist economy or a full-blown neo-liberal one, if a country goes from getting hardly any support and being rather self sufficinet, to being able to do buisness and have money at their disposal, than things will get better.

The main point, which surely someone has already mentioned is that Technically these economic changes only came about because they where bullied into it by the western powers.

It not exactly a fact that capitalism beat communism in china. It is just simply that China was given a lot more opportunity by the western powers to better the life of its citizens. They never had anything like this and had all types of blockades against them when they where communist.

World real-politic more than anything I think. Its the same reason that the cold war was more about global domination than it ever was about contrasting ideologies.

[Jazzhands]

All basically true, but my point wasn't that China does not have a strong central state, just that it is less so than in the past.

You talk as if market reforms somehow mean weakening the state. It only means that the means by which the state strengthens itself are different. China's government is stronger than ever before, because now they have investments from the West and the ruling class of China is richer than ever. Before the Party depended on brute force and internal suppression to survive. They don't even need to anymore. They have money, they have the same means of suppression as they did before, and they have a guarantee that the West will come to their aid because all the finances of the Western ruling classes are tied in several critical ways into China.

This also doesn't excuse the gross abuses executed both in the political and economic zones of life.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't know how anyone who claims to be a socialist of any kind (including left reformists) can seriously consider China today to be "basically ok", with a Ginni Index of 0.5.

Even according to orthodox Dengism, if economic inequality become very pronounced, then by definition the state cannot be genuinely socialist anymore.

[Nolan]

Things like this are what make me skeptical of China's data of living standards for the working class. They've built pretty skyscrapers with their newfound wealth, but is all this praising really warranted? What we have is their say so, as I've said before. The truth is probably much darker. I suppose what we've learned from the case of Cuba is true - it's only true in the media's eyes if it's convenient. Anything else is PR propaganda.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/16/100691/chinese-fisherman-on-yellow-river.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/08/100264/waiting-for-a-hospital-bed-in.html#storylink=misearch

[¿Que?]

I don't agree, but am not really interested in debating that point here.

My point is that you agree, (by saying "partially centralized") that:

A point on one side of the spectrum can be reached, where more central planning is better than less.

and

A point on the opposite side of the spectrum can be reached, where more free markets are better than less.

Am I basically correct in stating that this is your view?
No there is only one point, as there is only one spectrum. Basically it comes down to this, a centrally planned economy can take many forms, as the state will reflect the values and attitudes and more concretely, the material interests of its people ideally, or at the very least, the people who control it. A state controlled by a class conscious politically organized working class will have as a primary aim, the suppression of reactionary elements. I am referring to this type of central planning, which broadly speaking, is social, not just economic, not necessarily to the general concept of central planning or the type of central planning which occurred in China under Mao. Your arguments seem to vacillate between these last two. With the type of central planning I am referring to, as reaction disappears, so do class divisions, and thus so does the state. Was this the type of central planning that occurred in China under Mao? I honestly don't know.

But let's consider how liberal markets work. Markets will also reflect the values and attitudes and beliefs of the people. The difference is that in completely liberalized markets, a few people will tend to accumulate more and more capital at the expense of competitors. This results in class disparities, which become more pronounced as time progresses.

So again, you have to prove Maoist China refers my theoretical type of central planning, the specific characteristic of which I have just described. Or to put it another way, to reiterate my statement from earlier, you have to prove Maoist China was a dictatorship of the proletariat. But even if you did, then I would absolutely have to choose Maoist China over market reforms China, mostly because by definition, it would result in communism, which is the equivalent of low levels of inequality and high standards of living.

[Queercommie Girl]

Utopia will never arrive, you can never have a "perfect" proletarian dictatorship.

The risk of bureaucratic degeneration will be in eternal existence.

Eternal revolution is the price of genuine communism.

I don't care whether or not this is the orthodox Marxist line, because on this point I very much agree with Mao's "continuous revolution" doctrine.

Basically, what I oppose is the idea that once a worker's state is established to a certain extent, all class antagonisms would essentially cease forever. I think the risk of degeneration is ever-present.

[RGacky3]

Thats because the "proletarian" dictatorship, is'ny really the workers in control, its a couple guys high in the communist party.

All of your theories on bureaucratic degeneration and bourgeiousie elements are useless, unless you tackle the fact of actual worker control and state accountability.

[Queercommie Girl]

Thats because the "proletarian" dictatorship, is'ny really the workers in control, its a couple guys high in the communist party.

All of your theories on bureaucratic degeneration and bourgeiousie elements are useless, unless you tackle the fact of actual worker control and state accountability.

But even in an anarchist society, degeneration is still potentially possible. Some people might still try to establish a "state" (in your anarchist terms) to oppress others for instance.

Communism isn't exactly a "natural" state of affairs, it is utopian to think that after a certain point no more oppression would ever emerge within humanity. Perfection never exists in reality.

The principle of "continuous revolution" is of use even for anarchists IMO.

"Anyone who doesn't criticise Mao is not a Maoist".

"Anyone who doesn't criticise (insert name of major anarchist thinker) is not an anarchist."

"Anyone who is satisfied with and does not criticise the present state of society he/she lives in (including a literally communist society) is not a progressive."

Progress never stops. Communism is not an "eternal steady state".

[¿Que?]

But even in an anarchist society, degeneration is still potentially possible. Some people might still try to establish a "state" (in your anarchist terms) to oppress others for instance.

...

Communism isn't exactly a "natural" state of affairs, it is utopian to think that after a certain point no more oppression would ever emerge within humanity. Perfection never exists in reality.

...

Progress never stops. Communism is not an "eternal steady state".
I'm not sure what is meant by "degeneration", so perhaps you could enlighten me.

What I do know is that anyone who argues that communism is perfection has not understood the arguments. Or maybe I'm taking an unorthodox position, I don't know. In a communist society, any form of "oppression" that may occur would be substantially different than in capitalism. We are talking of a qualitative change in society, with certain characteristics.

[Bud Struggle]

Look.

Capitalism is better than Maoism. I think that's been proven, really :rolleyes:. There MAY BE a BETTER Communism out there--one better than Capitalism.

Let's find it.

But for now lets take a step back Comrades and see what Communism really has to offer. Arguing over the beauty of failed ideas and programs--well it's pretty idiotic. I mean--starvation and purges vs. prosperity and economic growth?

You have your usual excuses--but geez!

[Dean]

Look.

Capitalism is better than Maoism. I think that's been proven, really :rolleyes:. There MAY BE a BETTER Communism out there--one better than Capitalism.

Let's find it.

But for now lets take a step back Comrades and see what Communism really has to offer. Arguing over the beauty of failed ideas and programs--well it's pretty idiotic. I mean--starvation and purges vs. prosperity and economic growth?

You have your usual excuses--but geez!

The failed Communist-Party states in recent history are testaments to the uselessness of centralized models of political and economic control. In fact, the same is true for admittedly capitalist nations.

The Party-ran states were primarily agrarian societies which had not developed significant capitalist models. What capital had been introduced was limited in scope: primarily lords and aristocrats maintained hegemony. There was no fledgling bourgeois class, and so the class antagonisms that led to bourgeois revolutions in the more advanced states instead led to proletarian revolutions in these nations.

The fact is that they were always far behind the West in terms of historical development. The ultimate failure of these revolutions to engender any significant worker management of politics and economy are a testament to this fact.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure what is meant by "degeneration", so perhaps you could enlighten me.

What I do know is that anyone who argues that communism is perfection has not understood the arguments. Or maybe I'm taking an unorthodox position, I don't know. In a communist society, any form of "oppression" that may occur would be substantially different than in capitalism. We are talking of a qualitative change in society, with certain characteristics.


Degeneration = revisionism = restoration of capitalist elements within socialist society.

In a nutshell, I don't believe class struggle in the pre-cautionary sense would ever cease, since the risk of capitalist restoration is ever-present in any kind of communist society.

Which is why Mao once said that even 10,000 years from now we'd still need cultural revolutions to fight against revisionism.

Revolution is eternal.

[¿Que?]

Degeneration = revisionism = restoration of capitalist elements within socialist society.

In a nutshell, I don't believe class struggle in the pre-cautionary sense would ever cease, since the risk of capitalist restoration is ever-present in any kind of communist society.

Which is why Mao once said that even 10,000 years from now we'd still need cultural revolutions to fight against revisionism.

Revolution is eternal.
I'm thanking you, but I don't necessarily agree. I'll have to read Mao's arguments in full to see if they make sense, tho.

[Revolution starts with U]

Honestly, seeing national-socialism (not fascist, just socialism in one country) wouldn't work seems about as obvious seeing that we weren't going to Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction."
But, at the same time, it is fallacious to not see the massive progress Mao and the Soviets did achieve for their countries, in very short times, compared to how long it took the west.

[Kingpin]

I am really no expert and don't have a grasp on the basics, but are the development of the productive forces in China as part of historical materialism part of the reason why China is better off today than it was 30-50 years ago?

Like the limitations of the agrarian, rural peasantry had reached its limits and was unable to develop the productive forces without some change in the base/superstructure of the society? And that is where industrialization and central planning came in...?

Blast this out of the sky if it is completely wrong vets, otherwise tell me where I am wrong or refer me to a work that elaborates more about the development of the forces of production in the Chinese experience.

[Nolan]

The failed Communist-Party states in recent history are testaments to the uselessness of centralized models of political and economic control. In fact, the same is true for admittedly capitalist nations.


Except this is not true at all. What their current non-existence does show is the logical result of running a state like a corporation - the oligarchs are much happier with their own little private fiefdoms.


Honestly, seeing national-socialism (not fascist, just socialism in one country) wouldn't work seems about as obvious seeing that we weren't going to Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction."

Socialism in one country is like national socialism? Make sense or make way.

[∞]

"40 years ago", 40 years ago my mom had started kindergarden. Shes more educated than she was then?

[Revolution starts with U]

That's why I didn't capitalize anything; national, socialism, i.e. socialism in 1 nation. Not fascism, I'll just call that what it is.

[Nolan]

But it's not about nationalism. "National" implies that it is. Also it evokes images of nazism, so stop using it.

[RGacky3]

I mean--starvation and purges vs. prosperity and economic growth?

Except there was economic growth during Mao, and there is intense poverty and political repression still, now I'm no fan of Mao, but you have to look at things objectively, a MASSIAVE influx of Capital is not an "excuse."

[Revolution starts with U]

You're saying the government of the USSR and China didn't/don't practice nationalism? :confused:

[Nolan]

You're saying the government of the USSR and China didn't/don't practice nationalism? :confused:
No I'm saying none of this has anything to do with socialism in one country.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, you have not made a case for such, so I will continue calling socialism practiced in one country where strong nationalism is promoted, national socialism. If I am using that term incorrectly, I would be happy to stop. But I have yet to see the case.

[Dean]

Except this is not true at all. What their current non-existence does show is the logical result of running a state like a corporation - the oligarchs are much happier with their own little private fiefdoms.
And how is running a state like a corporation not a centralized method of organization?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, you have not made a case for such, so I will continue calling socialism practiced in one country where strong nationalism is promoted, national socialism. If I am using that term incorrectly, I would be happy to stop. But I have yet to see the case. It seems that name is already taken. Why don't you try Social Nationalists? :D

[Revolution starts with U]

That would be a different ideology I'm not familiar with. Remember, when you capitalize things you put absolute meaning to them. I am refering to national socialism; socialism + nationalism. I am not reffering to National Socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

I am refering to national socialism; socialism + nationalism. I am not reffering to National Socialism.

I understand that--but you have to admit your terminology could lead to more than a little confusion.

[∞]

Except there was economic growth during Mao, and there is intense poverty and political repression still, now I'm no fan of Mao, but you have to look at things objectively, a MASSIAVE influx of Capital is not an "excuse."

Not exactly, the Antis campaign promoted growth, but the cultural revolution had severely brought China's growth back down.

[Queercommie Girl]

Economics isn't everything. The Cultural Revolution promoted more proletarian democracy which is good.

Socialism isn't always "growth-centred".

I'd rather be "poor and free" than "rich and not free".

[∞]

Economics isn't everything. The Cultural Revolution promoted more proletarian democracy which is good.

Socialism isn't always "growth-centred".

I'd rather be "poor and free" than "rich and not free".

Don't be too sure about that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4985756.stm)

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't be too sure about that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4985756.stm)

I don't deny that the CR was an objective mess in some ways, despite it being a subjectively genuine attempt to anti-bureaucratism, but I don't think you should just quote Western bourgeois sources about China without a grain of salt.

[∞]

It was an MOTHER FUCKING witness

[RGacky3]

Economics isn't everything. The Cultural Revolution promoted more proletarian democracy which is good.

Socialism isn't always "growth-centred".

I'd rather be "poor and free" than "rich and not free".


That last sentance is'nt really a great argument for Mao.

Proletarian democracy? Really? Or was it just what Mao decided what was proletarian or not.

[Nolan]

Well, you have not made a case for such, so I will continue calling socialism practiced in one country where strong nationalism is promoted, national socialism. If I am using that term incorrectly, I would be happy to stop. But I have yet to see the case.

And you haven't made a case for why "national socialism" is better than SIOC.* "National socialism" (Again, forgetting that the nazis ever existed. So for our purposes we'll ignore the anti-socialist connotations) implies that nationalism or some form thereof is a main doctrine. SIOC is no such thing. It is a strategy for consolidating proletarian rule that has nothing to do with nationalism.

*you would probably consider the Soviet Union "national socialist" after it stopped having anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. If that's what floats your boat, fine, but be careful not to confuse the inexperienced.

[Nolan]

Oh yeah the GPCR, that went really well bro. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

And you haven't made a case for why "national socialism" is better than SIOC.*
I don't like anagrams! :mad: haha, jk.

"National socialism" (Again, forgetting that the nazis ever existed. So for our purposes we'll ignore the anti-socialist connotations) implies that nationalism or some form thereof is a main doctrine. SIOC is no such thing. It is a strategy for consolidating proletarian rule that has nothing to do with nationalism.
Did it promote the worship of the USSR? I guess it's not nationalism, because the "nation" is russia, or ukraine, or whatever. I'll grant you that.
How about imperical socialism?

[Bright Banana Beard]

It was an MOTHER FUCKING witness
So you think witness is the proof that revolutionary shouldn't be supported? Yes or No?

[Lt. Ferret]

id say it means more than youtube videos and sociology books.

[∞]

So you think witness is the proof that revolutionary shouldn't be supported? Yes or No?

lolwut?