Miscellaneous News

spring2017

New Member
Registered Member
Doesn't those two charts contradict each other?
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.
Indeed, using market as the sole measure for socialist vs. capitalist systems misses an critical dimension: the class nature of the state, ie. who is the ruling class, who controls the means of production.

For example, Nazi Germany had a strong state intervention into economy, but it is capitalist, and the means of production were owned by capitalist. The behaviors of Nazi Germany are very different from China and the USSR due to their class nature.

That's called state-capitalism, which is more efficient than free market, and the capitalists would always drop the pretense of free-market efficiency and choose that form of capitalism at the most needy moment, such as in war time.
 

4Runner

Senior Member
Registered Member
That's called state-capitalism, which is more efficient than free market, and the capitalists would always drop the pretense of free-market efficiency and choose that form of capitalism at the most needy moment, such as in war time.
I disagree with that thesis. Germany was a fascist country. Its state capitalism was built on top of a failed market capitalism after the defeat of the WW1. China is a socialist country. Its state capitalism is built on top of a socialist society. China is actually a hybrid capitalism, with roughly half/half between state economy and private economy. Germany was forced to go extreme by the WW1 winners, which were essentially suffocating the Germany public. China embarked on a market economy by its own choice after several failed attempts to modernize since 1840. Look at the number of billionaires between China/US/EU. Look at the leading technology companies between China/US/EU.
 

Kaeshmiri

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Idk if anyone paying attention to what's happening in Samoa. There's a constitutional crisis going on where the Pro-China incumbent PM (Sailele Malielegaoi) has claimed to win the election but his Anti-China opponent (Naomi Mata'afa) claims other wise.

Judging by how the Western Media is fawning over Naomi Mata'afa its pretty clear that she's going to be afresh entrant into the Anti-China club. Naomi has promised to discard major Chinese deals and port projects.

As of now no major nation has taken sides but we can expect the West to back Naomi.

Meanwhile China - China, which enjoys close relations with Malielegaoi and had looked at bankrolling a major port project for his government, said it would abide by its policy of "non-interference in internal affairs"

While the West is actively interfering, China continues to Not Interfere and then you wonder why every nation around them is turning against them.
 

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
said it would abide by its policy of "non-interference in internal affairs"
China thinks that if it doesn't interfere, the interference game will stop

This is wrong. If you are playing chess and your opponent quits does that mean you have to quit as well? No.

The game is being played even if China refuses to participate. The West can keep interfering with zero or little consequences due to their advanced CIA-level operations and media controlled by the West.


Naomi has promised to discard major Chinese deals and port projects.
And this is how China will be negatively affected by not participating in the interference game. So how many millions and billions are we talking about here...

This is why Africa is such an unreliable place to invest. I understand that China is willingly taking this risk, but lets not forget that these billions could also be invested domestically and improve the lives of so many poor Chinese
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Republicans don't think about what they say. If Gaetz thinks you can shoot people in Silicon Valley because they regulate Republicans' free speech then is it all right to shoot a Republican that works to deny minorities voting...? Also they forget that these Silicon Valley companies are private companies. They can make up any rule they want because they're not the government which Republicans want to privatize everything in the first place to avoid the government having a say in anything.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
The community is the dictatorship of the proletariat that follows the leadership of the CPC.
That does not answer the question. The question is how China's system puts the regulation in the hands of the masses more than any Western/capitalist system. The community is no more a dictator in China than the West and the people follow the leadership in China just like in the West.
How is it drifting away from socialism?
Previously answered:

I said:
"The Chinese people are more and more hungry for personal success and wealth. They had given up when China was fully socialist under Mao; now you have people dying to get rich and eager to buy luxury items to show it off. This is clearly a cultural trend towards capitalism."

You did not answer.

I said:
"State-owned industries are crucial to China's growth but they are becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the pie as China's private industries boom and its billionaires sprout, putting more and more wealth in private rather than collective hands."

You responded that function is more important than size as SOEs control the crucial functions. I rebutted that those crucial functions have always been state-controlled; they are just smaller now in economic proportion so that is still drifting away from collective hands into private hands. You did not rebut.

I said:
"Wealth inequality has decreased in the short term but actually increased in the long term. China, in its olden full socialist days, was full of poor people who dressed in uniform with a red star and wealth-flaunting was non-existent. Then, as you said, in the frenzy of the 90's and 2000's, the wealth gap exploded due to lack of regulation. Now, it is narrowing back as a modern economy but the gap today is still far larger than it was when China was fully socialist. We still have people working 16 hour assembly lines who share an underground apartment with 5 other guys and we have the rich who eat meals that are more expensive than the monthly salary of the poor. (It's a wealth gap still greater than the majority of the developed nations in the West.) This does not point to a nation moving away from capitalism towards socialism but it points to a country that was first completely socialist, then opened up to the free market as a young economy, but then started to get the hang of things and regulate more and more like a modern mature economy."

You responded that private wealth accumulation does not go against socialism. But you also said that the main goal of socialism is to close the social inequality gap. I am rebutting now that that means that private wealth accumulation of epic proportions such as in the form of billionaires, then does in face go against socialism because creating billionaires is creating social inequality.
What China does fits the definition of socialism.
No it does not. It does not fit the definition, as we are discussing, because the masses hold no special control in China that is not present in the West; if anything the masses have one less mechanism in China than they do in the West which is voting out representatives. China's modern trend also does not fit the spirit of socialism, which, as you said, is to close social inequality, and if you let the hyper-rich boom in China, that antagonizes social equality. It might be better than in the early 2000's, but a slow closing of the wealth gap up to a certain point is normal for a relatively free market as it matures and becomes more regulated.
That's a typically capitalist view of socialism, because capitalists want people to believe the only way to reduce social inequality is to make everyone poor. That's basically a scaremongering tactic.

As China has demonstrated, this is simply not true. If you compare the 90's to the present day, you might find that the wealth gap has increased just because China has so many more billionaires.

However, for anyone who has spent time in those two periods, it is quite clear that SOCIAL INEQUALITY has been massively reduced.

In the 90s we had migrant workers living in shacks, their children left behind in villages with no education prospects. We had entire villages with cancer due to nearby factories polluting the water. We had corrupt officials openly displaying their affluence with extravagant weddings and wasting public funds with dinners costing tens of thousands of yuan on the public tab.

None of those things are happening anymore. Migrant workers have now returned to their villages of settled down in cities with their family. Pollution has been tamped down and environmental laws stringently enforced. Corrupt officials have been sacked and executed.

That's what I'm talking about. The wealth gap by itself doesn't reflect social inequality.
I do not accept that argument because the closing of the social inequality gap, as you define it, is really just the natural advancement and improvement of society in general. It is not a socialist thing; Western capitalist economies also had periods where people were getting cancer and poisoned by the chemicals dumped into the environment and times where miners/workers left their families for prolonged periods for work exhausting hours at dangerous jobs, phenomenons which are all vastly reduced now due to improved scientific understanding and improved regulation. What you describe is natural evolution of society that is independent of economic/political model.

The main determinant of social inequality today is still the wealth gap and with the boom of Chinese uber rich and private enterprise, the wealth gap is not being addressed in a way that is adherent to basic socialist philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Tyler

Captain
Registered Member
finally seeing some real action with US turning up the heat on China. Get ready for bans on products from Xinjiang
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So these Indonesian workers had other higher paid jobs already? They to be forced to work on a Chinese boat rather on land? It is time for China to raise the RMB by 20%, thereby raising the prices for all Chinese products to the US. The US will be denied of all affordable Chinese products.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
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.
That is called de-evolution LOL. When people no longer specialize at specific trades because they need to do everything for themselves, that is reversion to caveman style. You need build your own house , be your own doctor, make your own car, AC, fridge, computer (from resources you cannot go to the market to buy), grow your own food, make your own clothes, etc... That's when people live in huts, rely on horse-drawn carriage, and farm for survival.
If markets are unnecessary, capitalism is also unnecessary.
Markets are unnecessary for basic life, but they are for advancement of society.
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.
What specific technology would make a person highly competent at everything? All of the fields you mentioned require intense specialization and market support.
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!
That's not magic; that's called cooperation. A guy who has the talent but not the resources meets a guy who has the resources but not the talent and they combine their strengths to create a product/service that can benefit society and make both of them money. That is a beautiful success story. Capitalism has many flaws, but this is not one of them.
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
Yeah, it has its ugly sides but the main strength is that is works to make societies advanced and powerful. Everybody might be more or less equal in communist Cuba or Venezuela but they're all socially at a terrible deficit to even the poor in America.
My friend,
LOL Indian fruit sellers in NY call that out on the street to get people to buy.
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.
Find an example of a country that used the planned economy and succeeded then. Just as I said before, socialists have many excuses and many theories, but no real life successes.

 
Top