As expected, the previous China- US tarrif situation was unsustainable, both countries need each other in a way. Chinese exports to the US make up between 15-20% of total exports (GDP is misleading), and there is no replacing the US consumer market, other markets are already oversaturated with Chinese exports, and quite simply are not as wealthy as the US. The US needs Chinese exports to keep it’s economy running, they need consumers to keep buying stuff constantly to make the line go up, and China is the best source of these consumer goods, Chinese manufacturing can’t be replaced by any other country at this time.
there is no replacing the US consumer market, other markets are already oversaturated with Chinese exports, and quite simply are not as wealthy as the US
This is not true. The tariff war is a prime opportunity for China to develop its own “internal circulation”, aka domestic consumer base (the CPC’s own terminology and stated goal) and to increase consumption/development in the global south. The US “consumer base” and “wealth” for imports is really just the American heavenly tribute that it extracts from the world. The US gets commodities on debt that it has no intention of ever paying back, while the rest of the world is forced to trade US debt with each other if they want to do business.
The loosening of tariffs is a missed opportunity. The Chinese government could have continued to maintain pressure on the US. And while it’s true that this would have caused damage to export oriented businesses in China, China has a planned economy and certainly could print money to support these export oriented businesses. It could bouy its export industries by providing loans in Yuan to developing countries, so they can purchase Chinese products. The latter policy would pair well with China’s earlier decision to remove all tariffs on low-income countries (a much welcome move). Both China and the global south could then trade goods with each other using Yuan or alternative currencies.
The only good part about this move is that it gives Chinese policy makers more time to consider consider their options and take things slowly. However, this time is fundamentally limited, as the American imperialists are becoming increasingly impatient and belligerent.
they do to a far stronger degree then most modern nations but still fundamentally do market socialism. pushing the communism button would be irreversible one way trip and might be far too early to do that
You don’t necessarily need to push the Communism button to accomplish de-dollarisation. It could be done using keynesian style policies as well. In fact, Keynes himself at some point did try to implement a global “bancor” system in which no currency would have dominance and there would be trade balance.
The only good part about this move is that it gives Chinese policy makers more time to consider consider their options and take things slowly
It is clear there is no consideration in China beyond “line go up” when it comes to their capitalism action plan. This is the fundamental issue that the USSR had to contend with in the 20s-40s, which ultimately planted the seed for fascism, reaction, and the eventual dissolution of the USSR.
It is clear there is no consideration in China beyond “line go up” when it comes to their capitalism action plan.
Certain factions in the CPC have this view, but there was an ideological struggle in the CPC a little bit before Xi became president precisely around this issue, and Xi’s victorious faction has made significant efforts in curbing liberalism. So this isn’t an accurate reading of the modern CPC.
This is the fundamental issue that the USSR had to contend with in the 20s-40
I think it’s kinda crazy to accuse the Stalin administration of being concerned solely with enacting some “capitalism action plan”. And while the USSR during this time was certainly very focused on increasing economic growth as rapidly as possible, this was absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of the Russian revolution (and the Soviet people). The real seed of reaction was sown by Krushchev and the failure of the CPSU during that era of filling the loss of high quality and young party cadres in the aftermath of WW2.
Certain factions in the CPC have this view, but there was an ideological struggle in the CPC a little bit before Xi became president precisely around this issue, and Xi’s victorious faction has made significant efforts in curbing liberalism.
Comrade, Xi was the right winger in the struggle vs Bo Xilai. Bo Xilai was no more Marxist than Lasalle. Xi is no more Marxist than Lasalle. Both are social democrats (derogatory). Xi’s “leftism” has been “more equitable distribution of wealth within China” not “restructure the economy for decoupling and greater tensions with the Yanks.”
Their actions are no longer consistent with a Marxist party doing an NEP style programme. Frankly I think they fell into social democracy with Hu, going from “productive forces to beat imperialism” to “productive forces that will eventually inevitably mechanically transform into communism when we outproduce the yanks”—if anyone post-Deng even held the former view (i would say Jiang did, but it was under him that China stopped being self-sufficient wrt rice so, lol, he wasnt planning on conflict either).
Molotov’s memoirs have some very good examinations of how this mindset took hold in the soviet leadership; China today is subject to even more pressures in that direction than the soviets were.
This isnt even mentioning their consistent advocacy of so-called green growth instead of, y’know, not producing so much shit for the west and/or pushing for more mining, more water usage, etc, to produce “”“green”“” cars with materials plundered from around the world. Oh hey, the tarriffs woulda been excellent for reducing useless production of dollarstore trash. Oh well. At the moment, at least China isnt the one keeping conditions ripe for extraction and exploitation in other global south countries but their corporations take full advantage and neither the government or party seems to care about the ecological and social harms inherent to industrial mining.
I think it’s kinda crazy to accuse the Stalin administration of being concerned solely with enacting some “capitalism action plan”.
I dont think it’s “crazy” at all, both because calling things you disagree with “crazy” is ableist as fuck and bc its a correct take.
And while the USSR during this time was certainly very focused on increasing economic growth as rapidly as possible, this was absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of the Russian revolution (and the Russian people).
You mean “soviet peoples” right? Or are you (un)intentionally participating in the Great Russian chauvinism that Stalin began embracing post-1930? Otherwise I 100% agree with you that the growth was necessary. But “the growth wasnt necessary” isnt what Samotsvety said so you’re arguing with the choir and/or a strawcomrade.
The real seed of reaction was sown by Krushchev and the failure of the CPSU during that era of filling the loss of high quality and young party cadres in the aftermath of WW2.
Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs were the fruits of reaction, and they didnt plant themselves. This planting occurres at all levels of the Union over those two decades as party members needed to be good at fulfilling the economic growth quotas without asking too many questions about social harms and/or whether fordism is socialism. If you opposed rapid pace industrialisation, you were kicked out of the party for violating demcent. People who were halfhearted about it all were replaced with true believers in growth who could make growth happen faster, people who were fine with the deaths that always result from industrialisation.
Which, again so you dont misunderstand me, was a necessary tactic but one that had unexpected and negative consequences that marxism demands we not ignore just bc it makes us sad.
The result: people in the party throughout the union began to believe in the tactics of economic growth, fordism, etc, as principles in and of themselves rather than temporary tactical necessities—these people didnt spontaneously appear and take high seats of power when Khrushchev took over: they were put there (again, understandably) by Stalin’s government (which included Khrushchev).
not “restructure the economy for decoupling and greater tensions with the Yanks.”
This is fairly obvious and not something hidden at all. The CPC has no desire to inflame tensions on the world stage or to close off the economy, and they say this openly. On the other hand, de-dollarisation I’d an explicitly stated goal. There have been multiple tests of moves that could lead to de-dollarisation. The infrastructure for it is already being built and used.
This isnt even mentioning their consistent advocacy of so-called green growth
The question of growth vs degrowth as a method for climate transition is tactical and defining the “green growth” strategy as “not socialism by definition” is presumptuous.
Every solar panel and EV that China exports is a little bit less carbon dioxide released from what would have been fossil fuels. And if that transportation/energy wouldn’t have been produced otherwise (such as in the global south), it is still a gain if improvements in the quality of life are achieved.
Oh hey, the tarriffs woulda been excellent for reducing useless production of dollarstore trash. Oh well.
The tariff war isn’t even over
neither the government or party seems to care about the ecological and social harms inherent to industrial mining.
I have not looked into this specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was technological work in china towards gradually reducing such damage.
You mean “soviet peoples” right?
It was a typo. No need to be obtuse and accuse me of “great Russian chauvinism”.
Which, again so you dont misunderstand me, was a necessary tactic but one that had unexpected and negative consequences that marxism demands we not ignore just bc it makes us sad.
You are preaching to the choir. There are few people here who would tell you that rapid industrialisation doesn’t have ecological and social consequences. What appears tenous as best is your assertion that rapid industrialisation paved the way for reaction to take root in the USSR, while ignoring the losses incurred by the party during WW2.
Now it certainly may be the case that some of the reaction in the latter years come from the “fordist” practices of the USSR during its early years, but this is the case with literally all societies. The economic situation of earlier generations creates specific mentalities within them that they carry on until they die. Thereby creating inertia in thinking. Your proposed mechanism does not explain why the CPSU couldn’t adapt to changing times.
This is fairly obvious and not something hidden at all.
Never said it was hidden.
The CPC has no desire to inflame tensions on the world stage or to close off the economy, and they say this openly.
Exactly the point I made.
On the other hand, de-dollarisation I’d an explicitly stated goal. There have been multiple tests of moves that could lead to de-dollarisation. The infrastructure for it is already being built and used.
They literally torpedoed Brazil and Russia’s attempt at that lol. They dont wanna make their reserves of USD less valuable. They wont even use the USD they have to smash 3rd world debt. They want to maintain the stable international order.
The question of growth vs degrowth as a method for climate transition is tactical and defining the “green growth” strategy as “not socialism by definition” is presumptuous.
Economies focussed on growth for its own sake are capitalist economies. Marx explicitly says in the manifesto that a) communism is possible now (i.e. with 1848 productive forces) and b) that a defining characteristic of bourgeois society is the constant growth. In Capital, he laid out why it is capital demands constant growth. In his drafts to Zasulich, he says communism will recreate the stability of the primitive communes (no internal drive to growth) on a higher level.
The only reason for any marxist post 1848 to call for growing the productive forces is the need to develop military capabilities to defend against the imperialist cancer hellbent on destroying every ecosystem. Stalin and Deng understood this—Khrushchev and his ilk do not.
Besides the theoretical piece, on a practical level we are beyond fucked if we keep failing to decrease absolute emissions. We are already at 1.5C. There is no room tactically or theoretically for green growth. It is, at best a piece of tape put on a crumbling building to reassure everyone that everything’s fine so there’s no need to fundamentally change anything. And CO2 emissions are merely one of the ecocatastrophes.
Every solar panel and EV that China exports is a little bit less carbon dioxide released from what would have been fossil fuels.
Only if you restrict your analysis to “gas car vs electric car” in a vaccuum that ignores: what was used to mine the lithium, steel, aluminium, gold, copper, etc (fossil fuels); what was used to smelt, weld, etcetc it all (fossil fuels!); what was used to transport all the parts and finished products (fossil fuels!) and so forth. Dont take my word for it, here’s a paper by a marxist you can read that goes pretty exhaustively into how ungreen “green” tech is:
https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/alternautas/article/view/1451/1205
And if that transportation/energy wouldn’t have been produced otherwise (such as in the global south), it is still a gain if improvements in the quality of life are achieved.
Improvements in the quality of life of who? Certainly not the people forced at gunpoint off their land by “leftist” governments to make way for mines using 760,000 litres of groundwater per second and dumping the toxic waste into their lands, waters and airs? The citydwelling labour aristocrats with legal status and formal employment see (marginal) improvements in QoL; the costs are literally dumped on the heads of the slumdwelling proletariat.
The focus on “build productive forces to improve quality of life and increase our consumerism to western levels to show the superiority of socialism” was Khrushchev’s thing, btw.
The tariff war isn’t even over
No one said it was; just that evidently China isnt interested in taking the opportunity to do anything besides angle for a bigger slice of the imperial pie.
I have not looked into this specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was technological work in china towards gradually reducing such damage.
Lol. To quote Marx, “ignorance has not yet helped anyone.” As someone who does look into this: no, they seem to be poisoned by the same unquestioned faith in “innovation” as you are.
It was a typo. No need to be obtuse and accuse me of “great Russian chauvinism”.
I accused you of participating in it intentionally or otherwise by referring to the whole soviet population as russian (or by forgetting nonrussians existed). This is objectively a reflection of the “rah go russia” stance stalin took post-1930 and esp post-1941. If i made a typo and accidentally said something chauvinistic, i’d say “thanks for the correction comrade” rather than complaining about being accused of chauvinism.
There are few people here who would tell you that rapid industrialisation doesn’t have ecological and social consequences. What appears tenous as best is your assertion that rapid industrialisation paved the way for reaction to take root in the USSR, while ignoring the losses incurred by the party during WW2.
No one (besides you) is denying both played a role. Mindless copying of western industry sowed the seeds; ww2 paved over and allowed only the corniest of weeds to come up.
Now it certainly may be the case that some of the reaction in the latter years come from the “fordist” practices of the USSR during its early years, but this is the case with literally all societies.
Lol fordism and taylorism were imported to the USSR by the state (including western managerial experts!) only after the revolution. Go read lenin and krupskaya’s praise of Taylorism. These practices were only expanded and built upon, even after the west abandoned them as too pro-worker.
The economic situation of earlier generations creates specific mentalities within them that they carry on until they die. Thereby creating inertia in thinking.
By that logic, the USSR should have been more feudal and less taylor-fordist. The weight of all dead generations weighs on the minds of the living—but material conditions, the actual economic relations, are far more influential.
Your proposed mechanism does not explain why the CPSU couldn’t adapt to changing times.
And your proposed mechanism gives primacy to ideas and fails to explain social change at all. “My” (rly Molotov’s) proposed mechanism does explain these things, tho i didnt make it explicit bc failure to course correct wsnt the topic of the discussion. I wrote:
Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs were the fruits of reaction, and they didnt plant themselves. This planting occurres at all levels of the Union over those two decades as party members needed to be good at fulfilling the economic growth quotas without asking too many questions about social harms and/or whether fordism is socialism.
It should be fairly obvious that when all levels of the union are staffed by Khrushchevites further falls into reactionaryism and revisionism are difficult to impossible to prevent. Not bc ideas have inertia, but bc many party bosses (including the top boss cornman) had bad takes and could just deny people with good takes (like molotov) entry to the party.
Stalin’s attempts to unplant these seeds were (sadly) too little and too late and so the rot progressed.
They literally torpedoed Brazil and Russia’s attempt at that lol.
You will need to specify what you mean by this, because I am unaware of this incident.
They dont wanna make their reserves of USD less valuable. They wont even use the USD they have to smash 3rd world debt.
This is a Chinese attitude that I myself criticized, however, it is fully understandable that the Chinese leadership is hesitant to just say fuck it and give up (on paper) $4.5T of value. That’s basically 2 decades of hard earnings.
They want to maintain the stable international order.
Yeah cause having an unstable international order sucks ass. I see far too many leftists have this sort of “move fast and break things” attitude which the leadership of a country can’t employ as the standard approach.
Marx explicitly says in the manifesto that a) communism is possible now (i.e. with 1848 productive forces)
In 1848 even the mathematical method for planning an economy didn’t exist. If Marx ever said that a communist society could be built with 1848 levels of technology (he didn’t, as in principles of communism, it was stated that it would take a long time for a newly established socialist state to “multiply the productive forces” until they were suitable for communism), then that just makes him wrong.
At best you could say that by the 1950s-1960s the technological methods became available for creating a communist society (aka numerical planning methods, convex optimisation and modern control systems theory). Even then, those are not productive forces. For much of the world, the lack of even early industrialization was a huge impediment for communism. In China, full industrialization is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The only reason for any marxist post 1848 to call for growing the productive forces is the need to develop military capabilities to defend against the imperialist cancer hellbent on destroying every ecosystem.
I’d prefer not to die from preventable diseases or coal smog or live in a world without artificial fertilizers.
There is no room tactically or theoretically for green growth.
What is your strategy? That China nukes the western populations so that they stop consuming so many resources and stop emitting so much carbon? Or that Chinese people stick to lower levels of development while the ecosystem collapses anyway from western pollution, and then the west invades the weakened China?
Even if China suddenly pulls the plug on western consumption, the only thing that causes is for the west to immediately go for WW3.
Improvements in the quality of life of who? Certainly not the people forced at gunpoint off their land by “leftist” governments to make way for mines using 760,000 litres of groundwater per second and dumping the toxic waste into their lands, waters and airs? The citydwelling labour aristocrats with legal status and formal employment see (marginal) improvements in QoL; the costs are literally dumped on the heads of the slumdwelling proletariat.
We’ve gone from where to where in this discussion. Which government are you talking about? How is this unspecified “leftist” government related to the discussion about China? Most capitalist global south societies have immense class distributions baked into them, I am aware of this.
However, diminishing the QoL gains from improved energy infrastructure as marginal, and those benefiting from them as labor aristocrats (even though most global south city dwellers are still heavily exploited) is just being biased and heavily subjective.
This discussion is already pointlessly long and off-topic. I ain’t engaging on with the USSR stuff.
As expected, the previous China- US tarrif situation was unsustainable, both countries need each other in a way. Chinese exports to the US make up between 15-20% of total exports (GDP is misleading), and there is no replacing the US consumer market, other markets are already oversaturated with Chinese exports, and quite simply are not as wealthy as the US. The US needs Chinese exports to keep it’s economy running, they need consumers to keep buying stuff constantly to make the line go up, and China is the best source of these consumer goods, Chinese manufacturing can’t be replaced by any other country at this time.
This is not true. The tariff war is a prime opportunity for China to develop its own “internal circulation”, aka domestic consumer base (the CPC’s own terminology and stated goal) and to increase consumption/development in the global south. The US “consumer base” and “wealth” for imports is really just the American heavenly tribute that it extracts from the world. The US gets commodities on debt that it has no intention of ever paying back, while the rest of the world is forced to trade US debt with each other if they want to do business.
The loosening of tariffs is a missed opportunity. The Chinese government could have continued to maintain pressure on the US. And while it’s true that this would have caused damage to export oriented businesses in China, China has a planned economy and certainly could print money to support these export oriented businesses. It could bouy its export industries by providing loans in Yuan to developing countries, so they can purchase Chinese products. The latter policy would pair well with China’s earlier decision to remove all tariffs on low-income countries (a much welcome move). Both China and the global south could then trade goods with each other using Yuan or alternative currencies.
The only good part about this move is that it gives Chinese policy makers more time to consider consider their options and take things slowly. However, this time is fundamentally limited, as the American imperialists are becoming increasingly impatient and belligerent.
they do to a far stronger degree then most modern nations but still fundamentally do market socialism. pushing the communism button would be irreversible one way trip and might be far too early to do that
You don’t necessarily need to push the Communism button to accomplish de-dollarisation. It could be done using keynesian style policies as well. In fact, Keynes himself at some point did try to implement a global “bancor” system in which no currency would have dominance and there would be trade balance.
It is clear there is no consideration in China beyond “line go up” when it comes to their capitalism action plan. This is the fundamental issue that the USSR had to contend with in the 20s-40s, which ultimately planted the seed for fascism, reaction, and the eventual dissolution of the USSR.
Certain factions in the CPC have this view, but there was an ideological struggle in the CPC a little bit before Xi became president precisely around this issue, and Xi’s victorious faction has made significant efforts in curbing liberalism. So this isn’t an accurate reading of the modern CPC.
I think it’s kinda crazy to accuse the Stalin administration of being concerned solely with enacting some “capitalism action plan”. And while the USSR during this time was certainly very focused on increasing economic growth as rapidly as possible, this was absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of the Russian revolution (and the Soviet people). The real seed of reaction was sown by Krushchev and the failure of the CPSU during that era of filling the loss of high quality and young party cadres in the aftermath of WW2.
Comrade, Xi was the right winger in the struggle vs Bo Xilai. Bo Xilai was no more Marxist than Lasalle. Xi is no more Marxist than Lasalle. Both are social democrats (derogatory). Xi’s “leftism” has been “more equitable distribution of wealth within China” not “restructure the economy for decoupling and greater tensions with the Yanks.”
Their actions are no longer consistent with a Marxist party doing an NEP style programme. Frankly I think they fell into social democracy with Hu, going from “productive forces to beat imperialism” to “productive forces that will eventually inevitably mechanically transform into communism when we outproduce the yanks”—if anyone post-Deng even held the former view (i would say Jiang did, but it was under him that China stopped being self-sufficient wrt rice so, lol, he wasnt planning on conflict either).
Molotov’s memoirs have some very good examinations of how this mindset took hold in the soviet leadership; China today is subject to even more pressures in that direction than the soviets were.
This isnt even mentioning their consistent advocacy of so-called green growth instead of, y’know, not producing so much shit for the west and/or pushing for more mining, more water usage, etc, to produce “”“green”“” cars with materials plundered from around the world. Oh hey, the tarriffs woulda been excellent for reducing useless production of dollarstore trash. Oh well. At the moment, at least China isnt the one keeping conditions ripe for extraction and exploitation in other global south countries but their corporations take full advantage and neither the government or party seems to care about the ecological and social harms inherent to industrial mining.
I dont think it’s “crazy” at all, both because calling things you disagree with “crazy” is ableist as fuck and bc its a correct take.
You mean “soviet peoples” right? Or are you (un)intentionally participating in the Great Russian chauvinism that Stalin began embracing post-1930? Otherwise I 100% agree with you that the growth was necessary. But “the growth wasnt necessary” isnt what Samotsvety said so you’re arguing with the choir and/or a strawcomrade.
Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs were the fruits of reaction, and they didnt plant themselves. This planting occurres at all levels of the Union over those two decades as party members needed to be good at fulfilling the economic growth quotas without asking too many questions about social harms and/or whether fordism is socialism. If you opposed rapid pace industrialisation, you were kicked out of the party for violating demcent. People who were halfhearted about it all were replaced with true believers in growth who could make growth happen faster, people who were fine with the deaths that always result from industrialisation.
Which, again so you dont misunderstand me, was a necessary tactic but one that had unexpected and negative consequences that marxism demands we not ignore just bc it makes us sad.
The result: people in the party throughout the union began to believe in the tactics of economic growth, fordism, etc, as principles in and of themselves rather than temporary tactical necessities—these people didnt spontaneously appear and take high seats of power when Khrushchev took over: they were put there (again, understandably) by Stalin’s government (which included Khrushchev).
This is fairly obvious and not something hidden at all. The CPC has no desire to inflame tensions on the world stage or to close off the economy, and they say this openly. On the other hand, de-dollarisation I’d an explicitly stated goal. There have been multiple tests of moves that could lead to de-dollarisation. The infrastructure for it is already being built and used.
The question of growth vs degrowth as a method for climate transition is tactical and defining the “green growth” strategy as “not socialism by definition” is presumptuous.
Every solar panel and EV that China exports is a little bit less carbon dioxide released from what would have been fossil fuels. And if that transportation/energy wouldn’t have been produced otherwise (such as in the global south), it is still a gain if improvements in the quality of life are achieved.
The tariff war isn’t even over
I have not looked into this specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was technological work in china towards gradually reducing such damage.
It was a typo. No need to be obtuse and accuse me of “great Russian chauvinism”.
You are preaching to the choir. There are few people here who would tell you that rapid industrialisation doesn’t have ecological and social consequences. What appears tenous as best is your assertion that rapid industrialisation paved the way for reaction to take root in the USSR, while ignoring the losses incurred by the party during WW2.
Now it certainly may be the case that some of the reaction in the latter years come from the “fordist” practices of the USSR during its early years, but this is the case with literally all societies. The economic situation of earlier generations creates specific mentalities within them that they carry on until they die. Thereby creating inertia in thinking. Your proposed mechanism does not explain why the CPSU couldn’t adapt to changing times.
Never said it was hidden.
Exactly the point I made.
They literally torpedoed Brazil and Russia’s attempt at that lol. They dont wanna make their reserves of USD less valuable. They wont even use the USD they have to smash 3rd world debt. They want to maintain the stable international order.
Economies focussed on growth for its own sake are capitalist economies. Marx explicitly says in the manifesto that a) communism is possible now (i.e. with 1848 productive forces) and b) that a defining characteristic of bourgeois society is the constant growth. In Capital, he laid out why it is capital demands constant growth. In his drafts to Zasulich, he says communism will recreate the stability of the primitive communes (no internal drive to growth) on a higher level.
The only reason for any marxist post 1848 to call for growing the productive forces is the need to develop military capabilities to defend against the imperialist cancer hellbent on destroying every ecosystem. Stalin and Deng understood this—Khrushchev and his ilk do not.
Besides the theoretical piece, on a practical level we are beyond fucked if we keep failing to decrease absolute emissions. We are already at 1.5C. There is no room tactically or theoretically for green growth. It is, at best a piece of tape put on a crumbling building to reassure everyone that everything’s fine so there’s no need to fundamentally change anything. And CO2 emissions are merely one of the ecocatastrophes.
Only if you restrict your analysis to “gas car vs electric car” in a vaccuum that ignores: what was used to mine the lithium, steel, aluminium, gold, copper, etc (fossil fuels); what was used to smelt, weld, etcetc it all (fossil fuels!); what was used to transport all the parts and finished products (fossil fuels!) and so forth. Dont take my word for it, here’s a paper by a marxist you can read that goes pretty exhaustively into how ungreen “green” tech is: https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/alternautas/article/view/1451/1205
Improvements in the quality of life of who? Certainly not the people forced at gunpoint off their land by “leftist” governments to make way for mines using 760,000 litres of groundwater per second and dumping the toxic waste into their lands, waters and airs? The citydwelling labour aristocrats with legal status and formal employment see (marginal) improvements in QoL; the costs are literally dumped on the heads of the slumdwelling proletariat.
The focus on “build productive forces to improve quality of life and increase our consumerism to western levels to show the superiority of socialism” was Khrushchev’s thing, btw.
No one said it was; just that evidently China isnt interested in taking the opportunity to do anything besides angle for a bigger slice of the imperial pie.
Lol. To quote Marx, “ignorance has not yet helped anyone.” As someone who does look into this: no, they seem to be poisoned by the same unquestioned faith in “innovation” as you are.
I accused you of participating in it intentionally or otherwise by referring to the whole soviet population as russian (or by forgetting nonrussians existed). This is objectively a reflection of the “rah go russia” stance stalin took post-1930 and esp post-1941. If i made a typo and accidentally said something chauvinistic, i’d say “thanks for the correction comrade” rather than complaining about being accused of chauvinism.
No one (besides you) is denying both played a role. Mindless copying of western industry sowed the seeds; ww2 paved over and allowed only the corniest of weeds to come up.
Lol fordism and taylorism were imported to the USSR by the state (including western managerial experts!) only after the revolution. Go read lenin and krupskaya’s praise of Taylorism. These practices were only expanded and built upon, even after the west abandoned them as too pro-worker.
By that logic, the USSR should have been more feudal and less taylor-fordist. The weight of all dead generations weighs on the minds of the living—but material conditions, the actual economic relations, are far more influential.
And your proposed mechanism gives primacy to ideas and fails to explain social change at all. “My” (rly Molotov’s) proposed mechanism does explain these things, tho i didnt make it explicit bc failure to course correct wsnt the topic of the discussion. I wrote:
It should be fairly obvious that when all levels of the union are staffed by Khrushchevites further falls into reactionaryism and revisionism are difficult to impossible to prevent. Not bc ideas have inertia, but bc many party bosses (including the top boss cornman) had bad takes and could just deny people with good takes (like molotov) entry to the party.
Stalin’s attempts to unplant these seeds were (sadly) too little and too late and so the rot progressed.
You will need to specify what you mean by this, because I am unaware of this incident.
This is a Chinese attitude that I myself criticized, however, it is fully understandable that the Chinese leadership is hesitant to just say fuck it and give up (on paper) $4.5T of value. That’s basically 2 decades of hard earnings.
Yeah cause having an unstable international order sucks ass. I see far too many leftists have this sort of “move fast and break things” attitude which the leadership of a country can’t employ as the standard approach.
In 1848 even the mathematical method for planning an economy didn’t exist. If Marx ever said that a communist society could be built with 1848 levels of technology (he didn’t, as in principles of communism, it was stated that it would take a long time for a newly established socialist state to “multiply the productive forces” until they were suitable for communism), then that just makes him wrong.
At best you could say that by the 1950s-1960s the technological methods became available for creating a communist society (aka numerical planning methods, convex optimisation and modern control systems theory). Even then, those are not productive forces. For much of the world, the lack of even early industrialization was a huge impediment for communism. In China, full industrialization is a relatively recent phenomenon.
I’d prefer not to die from preventable diseases or coal smog or live in a world without artificial fertilizers.
What is your strategy? That China nukes the western populations so that they stop consuming so many resources and stop emitting so much carbon? Or that Chinese people stick to lower levels of development while the ecosystem collapses anyway from western pollution, and then the west invades the weakened China?
Even if China suddenly pulls the plug on western consumption, the only thing that causes is for the west to immediately go for WW3.
We’ve gone from where to where in this discussion. Which government are you talking about? How is this unspecified “leftist” government related to the discussion about China? Most capitalist global south societies have immense class distributions baked into them, I am aware of this.
However, diminishing the QoL gains from improved energy infrastructure as marginal, and those benefiting from them as labor aristocrats (even though most global south city dwellers are still heavily exploited) is just being biased and heavily subjective.
This discussion is already pointlessly long and off-topic. I ain’t engaging on with the USSR stuff.