i bet your the kind of person who think Obamas a communistEurasies wrote:I am anti-communist, bye.
Advertisement
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:55 am
Cisairse wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Pompeio said that China is Marxism-Leninism(Although he said eight days ago that China was imperialism.It may be that China has experienced a social change in eight days.)
Not even Mao would have told you that China was ever Marxist-Leninist. China, in the 21st century, is Dengist, which is a form of corporatist capitalism.
by Cisairse » Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:01 am
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Cisairse wrote:Not even Mao would have told you that China was ever Marxist-Leninist. China, in the 21st century, is Dengist, which is a form of corporatist capitalism.
Mao and Deng always said that CCP is the Communist Party of Marxism-Leninism.They just drew a line with Stalin, not Marxism Lenin.
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:If you think China is corporate capitalism,
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:how do you explain the national poverty alleviation policy currently being implemented by CCP? It tries to eliminate all the poor, but it loses money economically.This is obviously contrary to the capitalist principle of pursuing profits.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:03 am
by Shanghai industrial complex » Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:22 am
Cisairse wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Mao and Deng always said that CCP is the Communist Party of Marxism-Leninism.They just drew a line with Stalin, not Marxism Lenin.
Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, they are two terms for the same thing. Lenin was not a Marxist-Leninist. Also, Mao praised Stalin endlessly, and the Sino-Soviet Split only occurred when the Soviet Union began to rebuke Stalin's legacy.
Mao openly claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which is a distinct ideology. There are quite a few differences.
Deng implemented what he referred to as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" which is just corporatism (a form of state-capitalism) with a unitary one-party state as the political structure. China has not been socialist since Deng.Shanghai industrial complex wrote:If you think China is corporate capitalism,
Corporatist, which is a form of capitalism. Words have meaning.Shanghai industrial complex wrote:how do you explain the national poverty alleviation policy currently being implemented by CCP? It tries to eliminate all the poor, but it loses money economically.This is obviously contrary to the capitalist principle of pursuing profits.
That's not socialism, that's welfare. Capitalism isn't "pursuing profits," capitalism is when the economy relies on labor-value theft to fuel capital accumulation via surplus value transfer. This economic structure is obviously plainly present in China, and has been since Deng.
by Lower Nubia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:39 am
Aureumterra wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:Iceland - Significant portion of parliament advocates Social Democracy.
There’s a reason they aren’t in power in Althing anymore, their policies amplified the 2008 economic crash that really botched up the country for years. That’s one of the reasons people who grew up under those conditions are now supporting the Independence Party
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by South Odreria 2 » Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:42 am
by Lower Nubia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:31 am
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:18 pm
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Cisairse wrote:Not even Mao would have told you that China was ever Marxist-Leninist. China, in the 21st century, is Dengist, which is a form of corporatist capitalism.
Mao and Deng always said that CCP is the Communist Party of Marxism-Leninism.They just drew a line with Stalin, not Marxism Lenin. If you think China is corporate capitalism, how do you explain the national poverty alleviation policy currently being implemented by CCP? It tries to eliminate all the poor, but it loses money economically. This is obviously contrary to the capitalist principle of pursuing profits.
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:20 pm
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Cisairse wrote:
Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, they are two terms for the same thing. Lenin was not a Marxist-Leninist. Also, Mao praised Stalin endlessly, and the Sino-Soviet Split only occurred when the Soviet Union began to rebuke Stalin's legacy.
Mao openly claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which is a distinct ideology. There are quite a few differences.
Deng implemented what he referred to as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" which is just corporatism (a form of state-capitalism) with a unitary one-party state as the political structure. China has not been socialist since Deng.
Corporatist, which is a form of capitalism. Words have meaning.
That's not socialism, that's welfare. Capitalism isn't "pursuing profits," capitalism is when the economy relies on labor-value theft to fuel capital accumulation via surplus value transfer. This economic structure is obviously plainly present in China, and has been since Deng.
First of all, it's not welfare. Because it doesn't provide money directly to the poor. It's about investing in places where the poor live, creating new jobs and training vocational skills.
And welfare itself is a thing with socialist attributes.
The welfare society in northern Europe is exactly the influence of socialist thoughts.
The first premise of capitalism is private ownership. Individuals master the means of production and use employment or labor to create profits. Even in the Soviet Union and Cuba, the state also accumulated capital by promoting people's labor. Any economic activity will steal the surplus value of workers.
Because if the "difference between the value created by labor and the labor remuneration" does not exist, the economic activities carried out by the workers are actually at a loss. Neither enterprises, trade unions nor the state can accumulate wealth and the means of production can not grow.
Capitalism is a private economic system, and socialism is a social system of public ownership. In China, the proportion of the public economy is close to 40%. I would rather you call it a mixed economy because public ownership is still in the core position in China
by Celritannia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:41 pm
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:50 pm
Celritannia wrote:I have to say, this thread was entertaining in the begining.
Anyway.
The only way to save socialism is if compromises are made.
A mixed marked economy for example is such a compromise, where healthcare, education, and welfare are seen as a right, while capitalism and businesses can thrive through set guidelines.
by Wallenburg » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:54 pm
Celritannia wrote:I have to say, this thread was entertaining in the begining.
Anyway.
The only way to save socialism is if compromises are made.
A mixed marked economy for example is such a compromise, where healthcare, education, and welfare are seen as a right, while capitalism and businesses can thrive through set guidelines.
by Celritannia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:58 pm
Duvniask wrote:Celritannia wrote:I have to say, this thread was entertaining in the begining.
Anyway.
The only way to save socialism is if compromises are made.
A mixed marked economy for example is such a compromise, where healthcare, education, and welfare are seen as a right, while capitalism and businesses can thrive through set guidelines.
Yet more nonsense. You don't save socialism by capitulating (pun not intended) to capital in exchange for a welfare state. You have not salvaged anything that way.
The idea of "mixing" capitalism and socialism is about as stupid as the idea that you can be a theistic atheist. One is the universalized system of commodity production for exchange, where the overriding goal of all economic activity becomes the accumulation of capital, to make profit (or to make money, in other words), which runs on alienated labor. The other is a post-capitalist system of production for use, production carried out according to a common plan that seeks to satisfy human needs via directly social labor, not as some means to any other end like money-making.
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:05 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Celritannia wrote:I have to say, this thread was entertaining in the begining.
Anyway.
The only way to save socialism is if compromises are made.
A mixed marked economy for example is such a compromise, where healthcare, education, and welfare are seen as a right, while capitalism and businesses can thrive through set guidelines.
You can have a full market economy that is entirely socialist, and a command economy that is capitalist. The conflation of markets with capitalism is nonsense.
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:12 pm
Celritannia wrote:Duvniask wrote:Yet more nonsense. You don't save socialism by capitulating (pun not intended) to capital in exchange for a welfare state. You have not salvaged anything that way.
The idea of "mixing" capitalism and socialism is about as stupid as the idea that you can be a theistic atheist. One is the universalized system of commodity production for exchange, where the overriding goal of all economic activity becomes the accumulation of capital, to make profit (or to make money, in other words), which runs on alienated labor. The other is a post-capitalist system of production for use, production carried out according to a common plan that seeks to satisfy human needs via directly social labor, not as some means to any other end like money-making.
That's why I stated capitalism with guidelines.
Thing is, we cannot remove money from society, that would be silly.
But what we can do is ensure the wealth is distributed accordingly, and implement a maximum wage set.
And capitalism with socialistic elements can work. Unions that are on boards on directors for example, such as in the Nordic Countries, to ensure the rights of workers are protected.
by Nuroblav » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:20 pm
by Dominioan » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:25 pm
Nuroblav wrote:I've just realised that I haven't thrown in my thoughts on how socialism can be saved, so here we go:
I don't think compromises need to be made; we just need to make our ideas more accessible. We need to make it more clear what we stand for so that others don't throw around the term incorrectly and proceed to complain when we try to correct them. Listen to ideas and debate them more, as well as offering solutions to problems (this happens already, I know), rather than simply decrying them.
After that, all should be fine and the rest is down to whether people agree or not.
by -Astoria- » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:30 pm
Could help, that.Dominioan wrote:Nuroblav wrote:I've just realised that I haven't thrown in my thoughts on how socialism can be saved, so here we go:
I don't think compromises need to be made; we just need to make our ideas more accessible. We need to make it more clear what we stand for so that others don't throw around the term incorrectly and proceed to complain when we try to correct them. Listen to ideas and debate them more, as well as offering solutions to problems (this happens already, I know), rather than simply decrying them.
After that, all should be fine and the rest is down to whether people agree or not.
And get Bernie Sanders to stop calling himself a socialist.
☆ Republic of Astoria | Pobolieth Asdair ☆
Bedhent cewsel ein gweisiau | Our deeds shall speak
IC: Factbooks • Location • Embassies • FAQ • Integrity | OOC: CCL's VP • 9th in NSFB#1 • 10/10: DGES
⌜✉⌟ TV1 News | 2023-04-11 ▶ ⬤──────── (LIVE) | Headlines Winter out; spring in for public parks • Environment ministry announces A₤300m in renewables subsidies • "Not enough," say unions on A₤24m planned Govt cost-of-living salary supplement | Weather Liskerry ⛅ 13° • Altas ⛅ 10° • Esterpine ☀ 11° • Naltgybal ☁ 14° • Ceirtryn ⛅ 19° • Bynscel ☀ 11° • Lyteel ☔ 9° | Traffic ROADWORKS: WRE expwy towards Port Trelyn closed; use Routes P294 northbound; P83 southbound 
by Zedeshia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:52 pm
Nuroblav wrote:I've just realised that I haven't thrown in my thoughts on how socialism can be saved, so here we go:
I don't think compromises need to be made; we just need to make our ideas more accessible. We need to make it more clear what we stand for so that others don't throw around the term incorrectly and proceed to complain when we try to correct them. Listen to ideas and debate them more, as well as offering solutions to problems (this happens already, I know), rather than simply decrying them.
After that, all should be fine and the rest is down to whether people agree or not.
by Lower Nubia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:29 pm
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Duvniask » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:40 pm
by Lower Nubia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:41 pm
Duvniask wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism."
And I am a 400 foot tall purple platypus-bear with pink horns and silver wings.
Despite what some might say, in the final analysis social democracy preserves capitalism in return for a compromise where the working class gets universalized benefits. The only way you can really call it "socialism" is if you subscribe to the obnoxious idea that socialism is "when the government does things".
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Aureumterra » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:45 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Duvniask wrote:And I am a 400 foot tall purple platypus-bear with pink horns and silver wings.
Despite what some might say, in the final analysis social democracy preserves capitalism in return for a compromise where the working class gets universalized benefits. The only way you can really call it "socialism" is if you subscribe to the obnoxious idea that socialism is "when the government does things".
Ahh the old fashioned:
"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."
Spare me the bullshit.
by Lower Nubia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:47 pm
Aureumterra wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
Ahh the old fashioned:
"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."
Spare me the bullshit.
Social democracy literally isn’t socialism. And this is coming from a passionate anti-socialist. Sweden and Finland are both social democracies and both reject the label of socialism
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
Users browsing this forum: Cerespasia, Cyptopir, Floofybit, General TN, Greater Carloso, Hurdergaryp, Kreushia, Likhinia, Repreteop, Singaporen Empire, The Jamesian Republic, Zantalio