i've been living in vietnam for a while and spent some time in china, and talked to some members and supporters of their communist parties. honestly, i'm convinced that state capitalist market socialism is the way of the future in developing countries. by having a strong, technocratic party that ideally self-purges itself of corruption (as president xi jinping has done during his rule) instead of a bourgeois liberal patronage state that develops its productive forces in the name of capitalism, they achieve a more effective way to stimulate growth and raise the standard of living. am i wrong in this? was central planning not the biggest failure ever? can any country survive in this modern day and age in total autarky in the name of dogmatic socialism?
Help! i'm turning into a capitalist roader
Other urls found in this thread:
oxfordreference.com
articles.chicagotribune.com
en.wikipedia.org
makbit.com
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
twitter.com
...
Well, that's one way of wording capitalism I guess.
No. The 20th century socialist planned economies achieved growth rates completely on par with and occasionally exceeding capitalist ones. The collapse of the USSR and it's sphere was entirely a result of the bureaucratic corruption inherent to their later adoption of revisionist centrally-managed capitalism.
At any rate if you're actually on the verge of become an unironic shill for the Eastern 'communist' parties you may be beyond hope. You'd fit in better on Holla Forums than an actual socialist board.
You should look up Chen Yun
oxfordreference.com
Read this
Note this
Also see pdf
lack of economic growth was probably the biggest reason behind the downfall of the USSR and if you're shilling for them, you might as well shill for the only real vestiges of 20th century socialism left lmfao
en.wikipedia.org
Even the most prosperous Eastern Bloc country, East Germany, had half the GDP of the West
Vietnam's economy was in disarray after the war and actually plummeted due to the failure of socialist central planning
Why the fuck are they worth anything, then?
how was the USSR any more socialist though
I am a fan of Chen Yun, but the fact is that people deserve higher living standards and development, and central planning was basically inefficient capitalism run by the state
Deng Xiaoping and the CCP today give the bird a big ass cage, but continue social programs and SOEs when they are possible and sustainable
i'll read the pdf though, thanks dude
Don't underestimate it, Chen Yun deserves to be taken very seriously
See [pic related][1] it was made in 1986
[1]makbit.com
fug forgot pic
Point me to where I claimed it was. I'm waiting.
If you had read any Marxist theory (or just looked at the current economic situation) you would be aware that capitalism isn't an option - because it's not a maintainable system, it's a historical mayfly.
i understand capitalism is unsustainable but it's also a necessary evil at this stage of development for most third world countries
what alternatives are there? how was soviet central planning any less sustainable?
unsustainable*
you're right, i misread your comment
i think my main point is that i don't see any real alternatives to capitalism in the third world
the pink tide in latin america was a failure and just brought corruption and economic decline for the working class, and to me it's an indication of 1. the limitations of "socialist" wealth redistribution within a capitalist system and 2. the inefficiency of liberal democracy in producing effective governance
venezuela is basically a failed state at this point because of chavez and maduro's stubborn inability to cooperate with the market
Open source software doesn't make a society non-capitalist/socialst
That stage of development is gone, PRC is trying to shift from a industrial to a service economy, and now isn't that turning into a spectacle? I have high hopes for the workers in central China.
I generally agree that capitalism was necessary in the 20th century, and I agree with Bordiga's analysis of the whys and hows of this process and the inherent capitalist nature of the USSR and ML states. First feudalism, capitalism, then communism, if the capitalist can't do the job we'll have to do it ourselves. A question of the morality, or possibilities, of a socdem process compared to MLism is redundant, what happened happened.
Now in the 21st century things are quite different, now we have the foundations for a proper communist movement.
Even if you had complete worker control over the means of production, having a market economy means commodities would still be produced solely for their exchange value. The market drives workers to exploit themselves and the environment to produce under the socially necessary labor time to remain competitive in the market.
Although it's a step in the right direction, market socialism still wouldn't solve many of the problems stemming from capitalism.
The hardware was open source, all hardware was open source
For the case of useful intellectual property, the soviet union reached the highest stage of communism
In fact one point the soviets and the 4th international share is that the general intellect is of the public domain
Why did I expect a tankie to have more than a meme-tier understanding of capitalism.
...
which city are u in fam?
But communism implies that every piece of software or hardware is open source, because not doing so is rather dumb.
In regard of third world countries. The results of capitalism, mainly the technology that has been also used by the socialist countries can be exported from socialist countries, and even have the socialist countries directly aid in the construction of the infrastructure, that would otherwise have to be constructed in capitalism, so there is no need for the necessary evil of the temporary capitalist stage.
Soviet central planning was inflexible, because they did not have internet and enough computer processing power.
It still isn't mutually exclusive to wage-labour.
And if one were to look at history the existence of factories and the wage laborers within them wasn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the existence of a peasantry
What is your point?
…
wat?
How the fuck is the existence of peasants equivalent to open source?
You're just grasping at straws here.
A society where workers trade their labour-time for a wage is not socialist, regardless of how much fucking open source information you have.
thành phố hồ chí minh
It clearly didn't work very fucking well
It clearly didn't work very fucking well.
Plz if you have the time to study theory, read marxists.org
If you do not have the time, then in particular note
marxists.org
… that open source fulfills the requirements of this crucial third point
No it doesn't. Open Source is not a mode of production in and of itself. This is ridiculous.
This claim is equivalent to claiming that there is no difference between wage labor and subsistence agriculture with surplus appropriation by feudal lords because in both cases the laborer is effectively propertyless
No it isn't.
Why is it not?
If you note where subsistence agriculture and wage labor has coexisted it is not uncommon for the peasant engaged in subsistence agriculture, if fallow time allows, to engage in wage labor in said fallow time
In the same way workers do create open source things in their leisure time, while supporting themselves with waged labor
In fact it is not uncommon for coders, working on open source or closed sourced software, to work on open source projects in their time off
Because open source is not a mode of production in-and-of-itself.
And, pray tell, what does make a [thing] a [thing] in-and-of-itself
mfw Maobro protects this.
...