Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods
(classical) liberalism, which (in the case of honest classical liberals) has transmogrified into libertarianism
Rancid wrote:Another sort of misconception about the China is that economically, they are actually very inefficient.
Which funny enough, people on here will denounce when China has done that, but defend it when a western nation does it.
Fixed it for you @Rancid.
What I defend the West is that they have moved on from that, at least in the sense that they pioneered in instilling the idea that what they used to do was wrong.
China, on the other hand, portrayed itself as "I have never been wrong", but this very statement is wrong.
Industrialization of the People's Republic of China
Main article: Technological and industrial history of the People's Republic of China
Further information: Economic history of the People's Republic of China
Industrialization of China did occur on a significant scale only from the 1950s.
Main article: Operation Beleaguer
The U.S. government provided military, logistical and other aid to the National Revolutionary Army led by Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist government in its civil war against the indigenous communist People's Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong. Both the KMT and the PLA were fighting against Japanese occupation forces, until the Japanese surrender to the United States in August 1945. This surrender brought to an end the Japanese Puppet state of Manchukuo and the Japanese-dominated Wang Jingwei regime.
After the Japanese surrender, the US continued to support the KMT against the PLA. The US airlifted many KMT troops from central China to Manchuria. Approximately 50,000 U.S. troops were sent to guard strategic sites in Hubei and Shandong. The U.S. trained and equipped KMT troops, and also transported Korean troops and even Imperial Japanese Army troops back to help KMT forces fight, and ultimately lose, against the People's Liberation Army. President Harry Truman justified deploying the very Japanese occupying army under whose boot the Chinese people had suffered so terribly to fight against the Chinese communists in this way: "It was perfectly clear to us that if we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the Communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison until we could airlift Chinese National troops to South China and send Marines to guard the seaports." Within less than two years after the Second Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received $4.43 billion from the United States—most of which was military aid.
Not to mention that Chinese treat their own people as bad as how the West used to treat aboriginals.
Hong Kong is the best proof that given the same circumstances the West would immensely outperform the Chinese.
Wulfschilde wrote: The only place doing all right seems to be Russia, which made more money than ever since they invaded Ukraine, due to their pivot towards commodities.
'Pivot' implies that Russia pivoted its economy from the secondary and tertiary to the primary sector.
Reality: Russia historically fails in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy. As energy prices rise, energy producers are making more money than usual. The US is also making more money than before as the largest oil & gas producer however the effect this has on the American economy is smaller than in Russia due to the failure of the other 2 sectors. Still, Russia is not doing well by any stretch.
The ideas espoused by communists, socialists and fascists always place high value on the primary sector which in effect means that the major avenue of wealth production that they propose is land/resource conquest.
Communists & Fascists also propose to solve this via global domination rendering further conflict moot, but that will still not resolve the lost wealth from the other sectors.
Nor does it make it any less crazy.
Beren wrote:Why would their economy be efficient while being under strict and direct political control? In exchange their political system could be efficient, though.
ckaihatsu wrote:'Land/resource conquest' is a bit *facile*, since the histories of Western imperialism, and pre-industrial, colonized China, simply aren't comparable.
Maybe what you're objecting to is the *nationalization* / tight-nationalist-integration of industries that's pronounced in non-Western, historically underdeveloped regions like China and Russia, etc.
It's inaccurate to conflate only-recently-industrialized economies / countries, with the vast blood-drenched history of predatory Western militaristic imperialism.
'Small-c' communists don't even *support* the social construction / practice of 'wealth' (private property), so that portion is moot.
Rancid wrote:Side point, China, more than anyone is the most dependent on the current globalized system.
Your reply is 'facile' and nonsensical.
Economic systems like communism, fascism and socialism that rely and fetishise the primary sector(agriculture, minerals, fossil fuels) also rely 100% on land conquest to increase the wealth of their society. Economic systems like liberalism that rely on extending the secondary(manufacturing) and tertiary(services) do not rely on land conquest to increase their wealth and hence why Switzerland is richer than Russia.
If anything is moot is your denial of reality. A [communist] state will always want to increase its wealth and the only way a primary-sector driven economy can increase its wealth is by acquiring land.
For a supposed communist you have given very little thought to your pretend ideology. My impression is that you are not really a communist/socialist but more of an anti-liberal. You are not posting anything positive about communism/socialism, nor are you personally aware of anything positive just negative anti-liberal rants with no cohesion or logic.
Much of the left around the world had enthused at the Cultural Revolution. In many countries opponents of the US war in Vietnam carried portraits of Mao Zedong as well as the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. The trite sayings in the Little Red Book of ‘Mao’s thoughts’ were presented as a guide to socialist activity. Yet in 1972, as more US bombers hit targets in Vietnam than ever before, Mao greeted US president Nixon in Beijing, and by 1977, under Deng, China was beginning to embrace the market more furiously than Russia under Stalin’s successors.
The Western media saw such twists and turns as a result of wild irrationality. By the late 1970s many of those on the left who had identified with Maoism in the 1960s agreed, and turned their backs on socialism. A whole school of ex-Maoist ‘New Philosophers’ emerged in France, who taught that revolution automatically leads to tyranny and that the revolutionary left are as bad as the fascist right. Yet there is a simple, rational explanation for the apparently irrational course of Chinese history over a quarter of a century. China simply did not have the internal resources to pursue the Stalinist path of forced industrialisation successfully, however much its rulers starved the peasants and squeezed the workers. But there were no other easy options after a century of imperialist plundering. Unable to find rational solutions, the country’s rulers were tempted by irrational ones.
Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 576
A 'communist state' is, by-definition, *Stalinist*, since it doesn't challenge the global capitalism geopolitical paradigm.
Small-c communism, as from the Communist Manifesto, is about the world's working class collectively self-determining its own role in the workplace. 'Wealth' wouldn't be necessary then because all production would be collectivized, making all capitalism-type economic exchanges irrelevant (free-access, direct-distribution).
I have a *model* of what I politically advocate, which itself may-be / is *incompatible* with liberalism and its aims
As I said in my previous post, communists propose total global domination as a solution to resource conflict. But that applies to any ideology and not just communism with either small or big 'c'. One single global government renders conflict moot.
It should be obvious to you that a system that can only work under these circumstances is not actually a system at all because it offers no solution to any socio-economic group. Noone can be successfully communist unless the entire planet is communist is not a valid proposition for a political ideology. It renders the ideology itself moot.
I'm sorry but I found your pamphlet as nonsensical, moreover it is quite evident that your "communism" is merely a rebellious reaction to your American "anti-communist" upbringing rather than a sincere belief grounded in rational thinking.
I also find the US's "anti-communism" as tiring and annoying, the refusal of Americans to admit their failure in health care and other things they deem "socialist" in an attempt to maintain the status quo. It is quite annoying indeed, but wanting health-care reform to a more European liberal style is one thing, jumping head first in a rather ridiculous communist ideology just to stick it to your conservative parents or friends is another.
Labor credits Frequently Asked Questions
by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 10-17
When I was initially 'radicalized', the constant, dependable political culture of the revolutionary side of the spectrum was a real and definite *benefit* to my political consciousness. It was far more comprehensive than what I was used to for that subject matter, and it *superseded* the trite anti-communist perspective that had been drummed into my head during my time of growing up and maturation within the nuclear family, with the disinformation called 'news' that was provided through the three major television channels that was the norm back then in the early '80s.
I realized, marching with newfound comrades down the major street of the campus where I was studying, that all it took was the combined, collective willpower of thousands of people to effect public actions, to directly influence the politics of the day to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time, in 1991.
ckaihatsu wrote:And yet here we are *today* with *capitalism* being global, along with its superstructure, the world's bourgeois governments / nation-states, that *uphold* this global economic system. It's a *class* system, and it privileges those who have the most *equity* values, everyone else be damned.
I'll also remind that 'global domination' is currently what *corporations* and *nation-states* do, for the very reason that you're specifying -- a 'solution' to resource conflict, by nationalist-corporatist hegemony, as over mining in Africa.
Nations, corporations, and households all currently displace market exchanges *internally*, through 'politicization' / hierarchies, but then the dynamics are *that*, the social-ladder, and in-group / out-group thing, which is *also* kinda shitty.
I've been *around* (only-revolutionary) politics since I was in school, in 1990, due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and related protests against it:
Capitalism does not require 1 single global government to function. Communism does.
ckaihatsu, I hope you will not be angry if I find […]
You are underestimating Russian paranoia. The […]
That's what Trump said. If you’re innocent, w[…]