Just baffling

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

282 comments

Systems aren't decided by how "serious" the people in charge are. Iran is still a liberal nationalist country.
Further, the PRC is absolutely serious about socialism, the lives of the working class are dramatically improving and the number of billionaires is shrinking. The large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly controlled. Having a stock market is a contradiction, but one that is limited to medium and small firms, which cannot simply be siezed and planned but are allowed to develop to the point that they can be planned better.
You really shouldn't be speaking as though you understand China if you still don't understand Iran, liberalism, and socialism.
- Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization.
  Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism.
  You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all.
  
  There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising.
  
  Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID?
  
  Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit.
  
  They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse.
  
  Do you think we pull these things out of our butts?
  Wikipedia: Three red lines
  EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers
  Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation
  
  No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally.
  
  Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid.
  
  Liberalism isn't just a button that says "privatize." A fully liberal society isn't one that has 100% of production private, it's one where private property is the driving factor of the economy.
  Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. Socialism isn't limited to a narrow conception of cooperative production, but large, centralized production, in the Marxist conception. Wealth inequality is under control, and is gradually being worked downwards as the economy becomes more and more centralized. You have a deep chauvanism about you, not only do you presume to know socialism better than the socialists, but you do so without actually engaging with socialist theory, otherwise you wouldn't make such an error.
  Further, I absolutely know what "all" means. As others have pointed out, you've been arguing against a position you invented, not my own. You're just a debatelord, you have no desire to come to a greater understanding.
  
  “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “
  No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist.
  Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure.
  Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all”
  Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case.
  Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven.
  
  No, you're wrong about socialism. Marxism is precisely against the idea that you can eliminate all private property immediately. It is a gradual process of sublimation, as firms get large enough they become economically compelled to become centrally planned. Investors in the PRC is not a failure. Investors running the CPC and PRC would be, but that's not the case. Your understanding of socialism is incredibly off-base, and as such you're in no position to argue. Leftists aren't "ignoring reality," you're just making up claims to argue with.
  And, again, I stated that the development of capitalism necessarily means those developed countries become imperialist. Those in the global south cannot become developed unless they become nationalist, and even then they don't become developed, they stay constrained, and those that are socialist do not have the same mechanisms at play that drive imperialism. The lack of available capital to imperialize for nationalist countries in the global south prevents them from reaching the same levels of development of the global north.
  You are utterly incapable of making a coherent argument, you have to invent the positions of not just me, but other socialists, in order to maintain your fragile debatelord worldview.
  
  Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole.
  You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China?
  The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth.
  
  Socialism is not "decrease wealth inequality." Socialism is not "equalitarianism." Marxist socialism is a scientific outlook on the course of development, and how to best use that knowledge to uplift the great majority of people. Socialism in China has been by far the most successful in this regard, and it is thanks to the methodical approach to socialism founded in Marxist economics, relying on central planning and public ownership of the large and key industries. If it "seems like" they are abandoning socialism to you, it is because you don't actually know what socialists support, and why.
  The US is not abandoning liberalism, lmao. The drives of private property are the dominant aspect of the economy and that won't change until the contradictions get too severe to continue.
  The working class in China owns the large majority of the media through the state, which itself is proletarian in character. Simple.
  "Kiddo" coming from a debatelord trying to "liberal-splain" socialism to me is comedy gold. There's no hypocrisy or uncomfortable facts I need to reconcile, you need to put the phone or keyboard down, take a breather, maybe touch some grass, and then try to understand what others have been telling you.
  
  I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere.
  
  It's penance for my sins as a libbed up "Marxist" on Reddit years ago, before I actually started taking theory seriously. The pain is the price.
  
  This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it?
  If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that?
  
  The argument you were making was based on a position you invented in your head and has never once been held hy me. You misread the original point, and when it has been explained to you over and over why you misread it, you double down. Is it impossible for you to admit that you're mistaken, or is argument for the sake of argument your point? Neither is good, of course. You're deeply unserious. Put the phone down and touch grass.
  
  It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations.
  Ok 100% of nations
  If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
  Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case).
  It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it.
  You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim.
  
  The part that has been pointed out over and over is that you are misreading my stating that all capitalist nations trend towards imperialism as all capitalist nations will become imperialist. The imperialized countries cannot develop to this end, and neither can the nationalist countries, though the impetus to search for more profits that drives imperialism is still to be found in the imperialized and nationalist countries.
  What keeps them distinct is the finite quantity of capital, resulting in a division of the world amongst the greater capitalist powers. If all of the imperialist countries in the world fell overnight, the most developed of the nationalist countries would be first in line, and the imperialized countries would race to become the new imperialists, if they didn't already pivot to socialism.
  This driving trend is universal to all capitalist nations, whether or not that trend can even be expressed in the first place, however, depends on the availability of capital to exploit. Capitalism necessarily works towards centralization and monopoly, and this drives towards internationalism, but just like a sea turtle with a plastic ring around its neck, it cannot outgrow the ring, it will choke and die, if it cannot expand and imperialize.
  If you still don't understand the point after this, then you're deliberately ignorant, only in it for the masochistic desire to embarass yourself in online debate for an audience of a whopping 4ish people.

282 comments