Communism: Persuade Me

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

Also, I feel I should point out the obvious before this discussion veers too far into the happyland of capitalist candy canes.

China owns the capitalist world's debt because it's state-based system, while corrupt (but corruption is everywhere), does ensure that the economic proceeds are reinvested into creating industries and developing underdeveloped areas rather than being sucked away by banks and gambled away in financial horse-races for the elite. State control is how China maintains its growth rate and its not going to go gung-ho American-style capitalist anytime soon for that reason, because development is tied to the existence of the Party and without it the economy will simply not exist.

They're so smart, they made one of the largest mall in the world and made it inaccessible.

And of course, if you ever strolled to the environmentally fucked part of China:

Oh but of course, it's all for the economy. At least the U.S does have the EPA, which does its job well.

Everyone found out after the Gulf spill that the EPA is run by corporations. If it had happened in China, people would have been shot.

[The Merchant Republics]

They're so smart, they made one of the largest mall in the world and made it inaccessible.

And of course, if you ever strolled to the environmentally fucked part of China:

Oh but of course, it's all for the economy. At least the U.S does have the EPA, which does its job well.

Everyone found out after the Gulf spill that the EPA is run by corporations. If it had happened in China, people would have been shot.

Except it happens on a daily basis in China, and no one does a dangedable thing about it. They destroy the environment like it grew on trees.

[Norstal]

Everyone found out after the Gulf spill that the EPA is run by corporations. If it had happened in China, people would have been shot.

I don't know what you're smoking, but it better not be opium.

[Mongolian Khanate]

You do know that buying U.S. bonds is playing the "finance horse-race" game, and that is what's keeping the chinese economy growing by allowing the US to dig deeper in it's trade balance deficit? Current chinese growth is tied to american spending, not to the communist party.

I'll add that the chinese economy survived the civil war, japanese imperialism and other western imperialisms. It will also outlast the Chinese Communist Party.

I'm glad that's what you think.

Most of their growth in 2010 was tied to domestic spending. China's growth is fueled by China now. Not American spending or debt.

The Party is the economy in China. 70% of all industries are owned at least in part by the state, and are you going to tell me that they are all inefficient?

If there was no party, the capital would not spontaneously combust and bring back the country to the stone age. The Party's a fucking backbencher.

Are YOU trying to make me believe the Party made the chinese boom by itself after 1978? Foreign investment allowed this growth.

To say that China is not dependent on foreign liquidities anymore to fuel it's growth is mindblowing. If this was true, why has the global economic crisis of 2008-2009 affected them to the point of needing a fiscal stimulus?

[Trotskylvania]

Also, I feel I should point out the obvious before this discussion veers too far into the happyland of capitalist candy canes.

China owns the capitalist world's debt because it's state-based system, while corrupt (but corruption is everywhere), does ensure that the economic proceeds are reinvested into creating industries and developing underdeveloped areas rather than being sucked away by banks and gambled away in financial horse-races for the elite. State control is how China maintains its growth rate and its not going to go gung-ho American-style capitalist anytime soon for that reason, because development is tied to the existence of the Party and without it the economy will simply not exist.

They're so smart, they made one of the largest mall in the world and made it inaccessible.

And of course, if you ever strolled to the environmentally fucked part of China:

Oh but of course, it's all for the economy. At least the U.S does have the EPA, which does its job well.

China actually has more strict economic regulations than the United States, particularly for automotive standards. The problem is, that since China is a party-state, and is ruled by a self-selecting logocracy, in effect all laws are dead letters. It's no different in any-state controlled by a single party.

EDIT: And I just want to say, that having my nation name be so close to Trotskyist Hashtag has made reading threads confusing...

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

Merchant Republics,

In Africa, claiming you're a capitalist is still political suicide, even in the neo-liberal countries. And 70% of China's economy is still state-run but has obviously raised the standard of living for many people. How Euro-centric of you.

Pardon? How Euro-Centric are you? I'm Canadian.

Anyways. I'd think there is an obvious correlation between the fact that in almost no African countries can you say "I'm a Capitalist" and be politically secure and the fact that Africa is generally a dirt-poor hellhole. For that matter it's pretty much political suicide everywhere in the world to call yourself a capitalist, left-wing drivel thought is quite mainstream, even though the average person is hardly a communist he eagerly agree that businesses ought to be chained by the state.

Better to remind yourself of exactly what the PRC has raised it's standard of living from, your statement would be more accurate if you phrased it like this, "Despite having only liberalized 30% of their economy, the standard of living in China has grown exponentially from where it began at 100% state-run.", look at Hong Kong if you want to see what a liberal China would have looked like.

However all of this seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. Which was about the problems of selling real communism. It's easy to sell "To Each According To Need, From Each According to Ability", it's much harder to sell what that entails, i.e. your hard work subsidizing the lifestyles of the less productive and more needy. The whole process creates a perverse incentive to consume rather then produce. It relies on people's altruism and willingness to give, I don't deny humans to be capable of altruistic deeds, but the altruistic life-style save a few monks is not desirable for the average man.

I've found it funny that Marx could posit the world to be an entirely material one and yet simultaneously suggest that we should then devote ourselves to an immaterial good.

The ideal communist world seems to me to be an ant-farm, where people work for the good of all others and share willingly any goods they receive and most sickeningly that they not give not for the joy of giving but rather because they are mindless automatons to the good of the community, their lives unimportant and expendable. It is intensely material without all the distractions of the freed mind.

As far as I know, the party wants to make a profit and that's why China is the most dynamic economy in the world right now.

"Liberal" China was run by feudal landlords and crony capitalists who kept the majority of Chinese out of the game. Hong Kong was a subsidized mercantilist economy under British rule. But instead of reminiscing about the past we need to look at China today and also remember that it has used its competitive advantage to the fullest, and that the special economic zones that fuelled China's rapid growth (whole metropolises growing out of fishing villages in a few decades) could not have happened without centralized control and investment.

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

Everyone found out after the Gulf spill that the EPA is run by corporations. If it had happened in China, people would have been shot.

Except it happens on a daily basis in China, and no one does a dangedable thing about it. They destroy the environment like it grew on trees.

So does India my friend.

[Orwellian Huxly]

I don't have to convince anyone. Agree or you'll be sent to the gulag.

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

I'm glad that's what you think.

Most of their growth in 2010 was tied to domestic spending. China's growth is fueled by China now. Not American spending or debt.

The Party is the economy in China. 70% of all industries are owned at least in part by the state, and are you going to tell me that they are all inefficient?

If there was no party, the capital would not spontaneously combust and bring back the country to the stone age. The Party's a fucking backbencher.

Are YOU trying to make me believe the Party made the chinese boom by itself after 1978? Foreign investment allowed this growth.

To say that China is not dependent on foreign liquidities anymore to fuel it's growth is mindblowing. If this was true, why has the global economic crisis of 2008-2009 affected them to the point of needing a fiscal stimulus?

China has recovered and still has a rapid growth rate. America has not, and does not. Do the math.

[Orwellian Huxly]

Pardon? How Euro-Centric are you? I'm Canadian.

Anyways. I'd think there is an obvious correlation between the fact that in almost no African countries can you say "I'm a Capitalist" and be politically secure and the fact that Africa is generally a dirt-poor hellhole. For that matter it's pretty much political suicide everywhere in the world to call yourself a capitalist, left-wing drivel thought is quite mainstream, even though the average person is hardly a communist he eagerly agree that businesses ought to be chained by the state.

Better to remind yourself of exactly what the PRC has raised it's standard of living from, your statement would be more accurate if you phrased it like this, "Despite having only liberalized 30% of their economy, the standard of living in China has grown exponentially from where it began at 100% state-run.", look at Hong Kong if you want to see what a liberal China would have looked like.

However all of this seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. Which was about the problems of selling real communism. It's easy to sell "To Each According To Need, From Each According to Ability", it's much harder to sell what that entails, i.e. your hard work subsidizing the lifestyles of the less productive and more needy. The whole process creates a perverse incentive to consume rather then produce. It relies on people's altruism and willingness to give, I don't deny humans to be capable of altruistic deeds, but the altruistic life-style save a few monks is not desirable for the average man.

I've found it funny that Marx could posit the world to be an entirely material one and yet simultaneously suggest that we should then devote ourselves to an immaterial good.

The ideal communist world seems to me to be an ant-farm, where people work for the good of all others and share willingly any goods they receive and most sickeningly that they not give not for the joy of giving but rather because they are mindless automatons to the good of the community, their lives unimportant and expendable. It is intensely material without all the distractions of the freed mind.

As far as I know, the party wants to make a profit and that's why China is the most dynamic economy in the world right now.

"Liberal" China was run by feudal landlords and crony capitalists who kept the majority of Chinese out of the game. Hong Kong was a subsidized mercantilist economy under British rule. But instead of reminiscing about the past we need to look at China today and also remember that it has used its competitive advantage to the fullest, and that the special economic zones that fuelled China's rapid growth (whole metropolises growing out of fishing villages in a few decades) could not have happened without centralized control and investment.

China is though state capitalist and not communist. Although there are still some communist aspects to their government. While they still have many problems to address such as better enforcement of human rights, and civil rights, the PRC I think is over all not doing a bad job at running their country and creating growth.

[Orwellian Huxly]

If there was no party, the capital would not spontaneously combust and bring back the country to the stone age. The Party's a fucking backbencher.

Are YOU trying to make me believe the Party made the chinese boom by itself after 1978? Foreign investment allowed this growth.

To say that China is not dependent on foreign liquidities anymore to fuel it's growth is mindblowing. If this was true, why has the global economic crisis of 2008-2009 affected them to the point of needing a fiscal stimulus?

China has recovered and still has a rapid growth rate. America has not, and does not. Do the math.

^This

[The Merchant Republics]

Pardon? How Euro-Centric are you? I'm Canadian.

Anyways. I'd think there is an obvious correlation between the fact that in almost no African countries can you say "I'm a Capitalist" and be politically secure and the fact that Africa is generally a dirt-poor hellhole. For that matter it's pretty much political suicide everywhere in the world to call yourself a capitalist, left-wing drivel thought is quite mainstream, even though the average person is hardly a communist he eagerly agree that businesses ought to be chained by the state.

Better to remind yourself of exactly what the PRC has raised it's standard of living from, your statement would be more accurate if you phrased it like this, "Despite having only liberalized 30% of their economy, the standard of living in China has grown exponentially from where it began at 100% state-run.", look at Hong Kong if you want to see what a liberal China would have looked like.

However all of this seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. Which was about the problems of selling real communism. It's easy to sell "To Each According To Need, From Each According to Ability", it's much harder to sell what that entails, i.e. your hard work subsidizing the lifestyles of the less productive and more needy. The whole process creates a perverse incentive to consume rather then produce. It relies on people's altruism and willingness to give, I don't deny humans to be capable of altruistic deeds, but the altruistic life-style save a few monks is not desirable for the average man.

I've found it funny that Marx could posit the world to be an entirely material one and yet simultaneously suggest that we should then devote ourselves to an immaterial good.

The ideal communist world seems to me to be an ant-farm, where people work for the good of all others and share willingly any goods they receive and most sickeningly that they not give not for the joy of giving but rather because they are mindless automatons to the good of the community, their lives unimportant and expendable. It is intensely material without all the distractions of the freed mind.

As far as I know, the party wants to make a profit and that's why China is the most dynamic economy in the world right now.

"Liberal" China was run by feudal landlords and crony capitalists who kept the majority of Chinese out of the game. Hong Kong was a subsidized mercantilist economy under British rule. But instead of reminiscing about the past we need to look at China today and also remember that it has used its competitive advantage to the fullest, and that the special economic zones that fuelled China's rapid growth (whole metropolises growing out of fishing villages in a few decades) could not have happened without centralized control and investment.

There has never been a liberal China. I was hypothesizing. Hong Kong never got any subsidy from Great Britain, it was uniquely well-positioned as an East Pacific Harbour, but China clearly has a much greater amount of potential then a well-positioned barren rock. It was a super-power for most of history because of it's economy, Mao nearly destroyed it's position.

Look at Taiwan too, same as Hong Kong we see a Liberal Economy with far less resources outperform a giant of economic powerhouse in every respect. Eventually China got wise and switched to a market approach, the result of that is staggering, China's economy has grown exceedingly and would have not because of but in spite of their corrupt leadership. China's economy could very well have developed without central planning and investment indeed it could have succeeded to a much larger degree.

Tell me, do you even understand that today's People's Republic of China is still a terrible place to live? Even their growing middle class live scarcely better then the average poor Hong Kong or Japanese citizen, the per-capita income of the People's Republic is only 1/4 of Taiwans and 1/8th of Hong Kong, indeed much of their population lives only scarcely outside of third world conditions. China is better, much better then it was under Mao, but it is still a rot of poverty and hunger. Just far less of it. That is not a significant accomplishment in my mind, when similar nations expanded their industrial bases much faster with much less hardship and brought their people much faster out of poverty.

[Mongolian Khanate]

If there was no party, the capital would not spontaneously combust and bring back the country to the stone age. The Party's a fucking backbencher.

Are YOU trying to make me believe the Party made the chinese boom by itself after 1978? Foreign investment allowed this growth.

To say that China is not dependent on foreign liquidities anymore to fuel it's growth is mindblowing. If this was true, why has the global economic crisis of 2008-2009 affected them to the point of needing a fiscal stimulus?

China has recovered and still has a rapid growth rate. America has not, and does not. Do the math.

You do realize the puzzle here is not China's economic growth, but the fact it's economy sucked for so long, since the country has so much potential? The Mao period prevented foreign investment and economic growth.

And by the way; American spending was not massively cut, even if their economy has not yet recovered. Seen the budget deficit? Seen their trade deficit? YOU do the math. Here's the spoon-fed conclusion; they are working on borrowed time.

[Orwellian Huxly]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/28/40- ... ommunists/ This is a link on a communist groups web site that satirically addresses many of the common arguments against communism. It is both hilarious and thought provoking.

[The Merchant Republics]

China has recovered and still has a rapid growth rate. America has not, and does not. Do the math.

^This

Please, you do it too.

America was riding a massive housing bubble driven by over-spending, China went from poor-ass dirt farmers to slightly less poor factory workers at a snail's pace when compared to other industrial nations, there recent success is as much parasiting off of the more successful nations as anything else. Do the math yourself. It's much easier to add 100% to your economy if you start at 1*. Meanwhile America stands at 100 and is staggering to add it's usual 4 per year.

(*Those numbers should I suppose represent economic success units, not that those exist, just for the purpose of this mind exercise.)

[Mongolian Khanate]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/28/40-helpful-tips-for-anti-communists/ This is a link on a communist groups web site that satirically addresses many of the common arguments against communism. It is both hilarious and thought provoking.

Looks fun

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

[The Merchant Republics]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/28/40-helpful-tips-for-anti-communists/ This is a link on a communist groups web site that satirically addresses many of the common arguments against communism. It is both hilarious and thought provoking.

It was neither. In fact it was quite weakly addressed to the very lowest quality of anti-communists, strawmen as it were, which insofar as this thread do not make up any size-able number of your detractors.

I realize that this article might have been a jolly for someone who has to field comments from more simple RL commentators, but it's not quite applicable here.

[Trotskylvania]

This would be about the point that I'd invoke party discipline and either shuffle Hashtag out of the limelight, or require him to repudiate his statements.

*sigh*

[Orwellian Huxly]

As far as I know, the party wants to make a profit and that's why China is the most dynamic economy in the world right now.

"Liberal" China was run by feudal landlords and crony capitalists who kept the majority of Chinese out of the game. Hong Kong was a subsidized mercantilist economy under British rule. But instead of reminiscing about the past we need to look at China today and also remember that it has used its competitive advantage to the fullest, and that the special economic zones that fuelled China's rapid growth (whole metropolises growing out of fishing villages in a few decades) could not have happened without centralized control and investment.

There has never been a liberal China. I was hypothesizing. Hong Kong never got any subsidy from Great Britain, it was uniquely well-positioned as an East Pacific Harbour, but China clearly has a much greater amount of potential then a well-positioned barren rock. It was a super-power for most of history because of it's economy, Mao nearly destroyed it's position.

Look at Taiwan too, same as Hong Kong we see a Liberal Economy with far less resources outperform a giant of economic powerhouse in every respect. Eventually China got wise and switched to a market approach, the result of that is staggering, China's economy has grown exceedingly and would have not because of but in spite of their corrupt leadership. China's economy could very well have developed without central planning and investment indeed it could have succeeded to a much larger degree.

Tell me, do you even understand that today's People's Republic of China is still a terrible place to live? Even their growing middle class live scarcely better then the average poor Hong Kong or Japanese citizen, the per-capita income of the People's Republic is only 1/4 of Taiwans and 1/8th of Hong Kong, indeed much of their population lives only scarcely outside of third world conditions. China is better, much better then it was under Mao, but it is still a rot of poverty and hunger. Just far less of it. That is not a significant accomplishment in my mind, when similar nations expanded their industrial bases much faster with much less hardship and brought their people much faster out of poverty.

To compare the economy of Japan to China is ludicrous. Japan, although bombed to hell in WW2, was occupied by the Americans after the war and we poured billions upon billions into rebuilding the country. The Japanese while still a rich country have serious demographics problems, and debt that exceeds 200% of GDP. While the PRC took a little longer to get going, it is becoming an economic powerhouse. China was poor before Mao, and for a plethora of historical reasons. You would not blame India's continued poverty on their capitalist system would you? Well in fact China's centrally planned economy is growing at a much faster pace than capitalist India's. You attack China's leaders as corrupt, but most underdeveloped nation's governments are, including India's. Not many nations have grown as dramatically and quickly as the PRC's and I think its ridiculous to ignore these facts.

[Orwellian Huxly]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/28/40-helpful-tips-for-anti-communists/ This is a link on a communist groups web site that satirically addresses many of the common arguments against communism. It is both hilarious and thought provoking.

It was neither. In fact it was quite weakly addressed to the very lowest quality of anti-communists, strawmen as it were, which insofar as this thread do not make up any size-able number of your detractors.

I realize that this article might have been a jolly for someone who has to field comments from more simple RL commentators, but it's not quite applicable here.

Well, this is a thread about communism, so I do think it is applicable here. Life is better with a sense of humor.

[Norstal]

They're so smart, they made one of the largest mall in the world and made it inaccessible.

And of course, if you ever strolled to the environmentally fucked part of China:

Oh but of course, it's all for the economy. At least the U.S does have the EPA, which does its job well.

China actually has more strict economic regulations than the United States, particularly for automotive standards. The problem is, that since China is a party-state, and is ruled by a self-selecting logocracy, in effect all laws are dead letters. It's no different in any-state controlled by a single party.

EDIT: And I just want to say, that having my nation name be so close to Trotskyist Hashtag has made reading threads confusing...

I know, but saying that just because all countries have corruption, doesn't mean China is better in terms of government competency. Though, what I did find funny is that most Chinese automakers (last I've heard, you can Google it if you want) copies European and Japanese car models.

[Mongolian Khanate]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Why did the chinese government need to set up "Special economic zones" to allow foreign investement? It wasn't an "incentive" as much as little spots freed from the Sky-high protectionism and economic restrictions that kept the rest of China isolated. They didn't fucking subsidy foreign investment: they allowed it to take place. It's like telling me Kwansong in fucking North Korea is creating jobs. Sure it does; why isn't the whole country made an special economic zone then? The very State was preventing investment elsewhere in the country.

You congratulate the State on creating jobs, I hate it for preventing it for so long.

[Lacadaemon]

You would not blame India's continued poverty on their capitalist system would you?

No, because post independence India has been not very capitalist for the most part.

[Orwellian Huxly]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

The US deficit is mostly made up of Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and the two wars. And to be honest with you, while I admit that China has managed their economy well in a lot of ways, I think they are revisionists. They still have huge problems with fair pay for workers, which is an embarrassing thing for a supposedly socialist country. They need to focus more on programs to eliminate their corruption and help bring up the living standards of the rural populations.