Miscellaneous News

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
well, I can give a definition of market capitalism, and you can write ten books to list its defects, its failures… but still you cannot give a viable non-market, non-capitalism alternative.

Of course alternatives to markets and to capitalism are possible.

Markets are largely unnecessary if the people themselves can make everything they need, using resources as cheap and as abundant as the dirt under their feet.

If markets are unnecessary, capitalism is also unnecessary.

Of course, my scenario for the future needs new technology, but it is probably coming faster than you can say "Moore's Law". Moore's little rule of thumb may be slowing down for semiconductors, but in other fields technology is growing at exponential rates: for example, 3D printing, biotech, micro mechanics.
 

spring2017

New Member
Registered Member
That's where we disagree. You obviously subscribe to the classic view of Socialism, which has proven itself to be deficient in many areas in practice, and those deficiencies can be directly traced to a dogmatic stance.
My friend, Socialism from Marx, Engels and Linin is internationalist and democratic. They recognize there is no chance for realization of socialism in one country, and must based on worker democracy to combat bureaucratism. This is very different from so-called socialism from Stalin and Mao, and their followers.
China's Socialism model is based on pragmatism. It uses Socialist ideals as an objective, but it is not afraid to include elements from other ideologies where they are useful, including but not limited to Capitalism, Confucianism, Legalism, Mohism, and even Taoism.
China's "socialism" is a hybrid of capitalism on the a weakened foundation of public owned economy. The bureaucracy privatized public properties to enrich themselves, but uses all kinds of excuse to justify such action, including the old crap of Confucianism. It was the same thing the USSR bureaucracy did, but in a slow motion (which gave China time to develop, but it won't last very long unless reversed).
Wealth gaps may be a source of social inequality, but they are also a source of motivation and ambition. Without wealth gaps, there is no productivity.
This is a classic argument, but is not supported by fact. Some of most backward countries in the world had largest wealth gap. Another counter example is the USSR, it developed from an peasant country to a very advanced level of technology, without wealth gaps. Actually, China is similar, most leading edge technologies are created by state sector or under state support, such as in quantum computing, super computer, space and military...
China also no longer sees the need to put labels on people. We did away with that crap after the Cultural Revolution. Capitalists are not our enemies, they are productive citizens of our society.
It is not a just label, as long as it is true. The crap of Cultural Revolution is that there was no capitalist class at the time, but Mao used class struggle as excuse to rid of political oppositions. The crap today is that there is severe class divide, but no one dares talk about class struggle openly. But if you look at Chinese forums, you will find people hate the Jack Ma for so called 996 work schedule, as that's pure exploitation.
The onus is on the State to provide the regulatory framework to prevent individual capitalists from abusing the system for their own profit.
The state is never natural, as it always represents the interest of the dominating class. When Chinese capitalists have a dominating strength, like in other capitalist countries, they will control the state. Policies of Chinese government are already tilting to the capitalists now, for example, during Covid-19, capitalists got loans and other financial aid, but workers got nothing. Hell, even American workers got some crumples. That's why consumption recovery is still lagging in China.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I don't really see anything wrong with that US recruitment ad. Why? Because the fact is the US has a lopsided body count in wars not because their men are a bunch of Rambi and are more masculine. It's because they have the technological edge against the adversaries they fight. Most of the casualties they inflict comes from the many stand-off weapons platforms the US has. They don't send in troops until they believe they've softened up the enemy for it to be safe for them to go in. You hear stories that they make into movies of a handful of US soldiers fending off an army of Taliban or Vietnamese. That's because the US has artillery and air support. And remember many Westerners look at Asian men as not being masculine and when they lose to Asians they're even more angry. I'm sure training helps but when it comes down to man-to-man, the ratio of casualties on both sides narrows.
 

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Doesn't those two charts contradict each other?

The first chat implies that more Capitalism equals more Free Market, yet the second chart clearly shows otherwise.

This just reinforces my argument that Capitalism and Free Market are not the same thing.

I see the Free Market as similar to a chemical reaction. If you don't contain it in a bottle, it will make a big mess.
Capitalism is an evolved mutation of the free market. Free markets are present from ancient times. For example me,you, and other co-forumers meet in a xyz place and exchange products with prices set by xyz reasons(rarity,quality,quantity,labour etc). Capitalism occurs when @manqiangrexue joins the party but he hasn't any money or products to buy and sell. Then i come to him and say, "look man i have some money that i don't need right now and i can lend you X amount to get your things. BUT you have to repay me X+Y back, because the agony i suffered in advance, in case you could not give me the X. So without doing anything, my X money became X+Y. Pure magic!This is the moment that money transforms itself from a measurement between commodities or activities, to a commodity itself! After that, debt,finance,inflation etc get into the game and set the foundation of the monstrosity of Capitalism. Slavery, exploitation, inequality occured well before capitalism. Capitalism includes all of these, in a modern attractive and refined package which looks more civilized at the first glance
 

spring2017

New Member
Registered Member
The USSR, USA, China, etc. are models of Capitalism and Socialism. The problem with the USSR and Mao-era China models is that there was a dogmatic adherence to the model despite empirical evidence indicating the contrary. For example, sticking to a planned economy despite the fact that it's obviously falling behind the West.
My friend, the "failures" of USSR and Mao-era China was not sticking to a planned economy. That's was actually what helped them industrialized rapidly from peasant countries to modern society.

There were "failures", only in the sense that they failed to fully take advantage of a planned economy (because of lack of workers democracy). In fact, the USSR was actually the only country that made the U.S. imperialists shaken, and that was astonishing achievement considering the Tsarist Russia was defeated by Japan in 1905, and the USSR suffered huge damage during WWII.

If you look at data from the World Bank, which probably understates the growth rate of China (and USSR) , the growth rate of China before and after 1990 was similar, except the three big dips during 1960s famine, cultural revolution and 1976 earth quack. That's man-made and natural disasters, which had nothing to do with planned economy.

The reasons why USSR growth rate dropped to the level of U.S.A in 1990s were manifold, but bureaucratic rigidity indeed played an important role. Planned economy requires that the planners are both capable and have the interest of the people in their hearts. And that can only be guaranteed by workers democracy, as envisioned by Lenin.
 

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:oops:

Let's face a basic fact here.

This is an American publication, focused on America, and this article is written by an American, and he criticizes an actor who is also an American, for his interactions with China.

The Americans cannot even get the Americans to fall in line when it comes to China.

Yet, in the Liberal media, we read constantly almost every day that the western powers are going to gang up together lead by the United States against China.

How the heck is that exactly gonna happen when the Americans cannot even get the Americans to fall in line when it comes to China?

Why should we believe this?

Of course it is false.

There is no gang.

Just a bunch of clueless misfits.

Lost at sea.

:p
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

France and Germany have taken steps to acknowledge their role in allowing or perpetuating genocides in Africa during and after the era of European colonization thereof. They do so at a time when China is making increasingly bold and profitable overtures on the continent, and hope to prevent their former colonies from falling into Beijing's orbit.

Hold up there. So they're only apologizing because they're worried Beijing will become more influential and erase their influence on their former colonies? Without China they wouldn't have apologized? So it's like apologizing to make sure they can still hold sway and have authority over their former colonies.

Yes


No, they wouldnt




Yes

So Africa can finally see how they can benefit from China's rise. Watch as they take the West to the cleaners because the West is getting worried about China gaining influence in Africa lol

Easy for Germany to apologise for their colonial past and to pay reparations. They were late to the game and didn't hold it for long. Plus there's the holocaust guilt.

The UK or France have never apologised, let alone recognise it as a genocide or pay reparations. In fact to this day France are continuing with a form of fiscal colonialism with their west and central African currency control.

Imagine the outcry if China today announced that east Africa would have a new currency controlled by China and pegged to the Yuan.

Same game play all over the Anglo world...kidnapping, enslavement, abuse, genocide


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Introduction​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

January 30, 2001​

LONDON — In the United States, Native American children, “Red Indians,” had been forcibly taken from their parents and placed in institutions to “civilize” them. Australia tried a different approach.
In 1937, the chief protector of Aboriginals in Western Australia, A. O. Neville, a man generally recognized as a decent, progressive bureaucrat but who nevertheless believed in “breeding out the color” (commonly called “[expletive deleted] them white”), spoke at the first national governmental conference on Aboriginals, an occasion Robert Marine, associate professor of politics at La Trobe University, Victoria, has described as “a terrible moment in the history of the 20th-century Australian state.”
At the conference, Neville asked: “Are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?” The key resolution at the conference, “The Destiny of the Race,” passed unanimously, called for the total absorption into the white community of all non-full-blood Aborigines. Taking part-Aboriginal children from their mothers and families by force was part of this ambition. Over the years, various regulations had been invoked to make this possible.

Illegal: White man with Aboriginal woman​

In 1918, while the war in Europe was still on, the Australian government found time to pass regulations designed to segregate Aboriginals from the white population and reduce the number of children with mixed blood. It was now illegal for a white man to live with an Aboriginal woman. (No mention was made of a white woman living with an Aboriginal man because such a situation was considered unthinkable.) This met the approval of the Perth Sunday Times: “Central Australia’s half-caste problem must be tackled boldly and immediately. The greatest danger, experts agree, is that three races will develop in Australia — white, black, and the pathetic, sinister third race which is neither.” Control of all Aboriginal children was removed from their parents and given to government-appointed white superintendents. This was just another part of a process that lasted from the late 19th century until the middle 1960s. So-called “half-caste” children were seized by the state and placed in institutions where they suffered physical mistreatment and sexual abuse. To this day, no one is certain how many were involved — but Aboriginal authorities say at least 30,000.
The 1918 law caused no outcry. Government figures released in 1921 suggested that there were only 75,000 Aboriginals left, the lowest figure ever, and that since colonization, their ranks had been reduced by nearly 80 per cent. There is doubt that these figures were accurate. In the 1970s, a period of strong Aboriginal activism, many Aboriginal leaders I spoke with said that they had done their own, admittedly limited, census-taking in their own areas, and that their figures for the number of Aboriginals suggested that the official figures had been understated by anything from 25 to 50 per cent.



Guys. I thought this quite appropriate reply to your posts.

 

emblem21

Major
Registered Member
I don't really see anything wrong with that US recruitment ad. Why? Because the fact is the US has a lopsided body count in wars not because their men are a bunch of Rambi and are more masculine. It's because they have the technological edge against the adversaries they fight. Most of the casualties they inflict comes from the many stand-off weapons platforms the US has. They don't send in troops until they believe they've softened up the enemy for it to be safe for them to go in. You hear stories that they make into movies of a handful of US soldiers fending off an army of Taliban or Vietnamese. That's because the US has artillery and air support. And remember many Westerners look at Asian men as not being masculine and when they lose to Asians they're even more angry. I'm sure training helps but when it comes down to man-to-man, the ratio of casualties on both sides narrows.
Imagine the horror when they go up against a foe that can do the same In return.
 
Top