ARCADE GOON

5y

Exactly, this is 100% right - they have to do word-tricks because otherwise they must admit that they are socialist in name only. This in turn confuses a lot of the people there. I have talked to people studying law and politics in China, so people who you think should be acquainted with these things, and they openly admit that they simply don't understand what socialism means, what communism means, what Xi Jinping Thought means, the cognitive dissonance between Marx and the reality of China is so extreme that your brain would shut down. And these are people who had classes both in high school and in university about Marxism.

I like to compare it to corporate McKinsey speak - circling in, synergy, teamwork, solutions, innovation - but with a red paint.

Even though this is the Economist, the headline is kind of accurate: "China is struggling to explain Xi Jinping Thought" - this is the actual diagram that is supposed to help students:

deadacc

5y

one reason i am partially hopeful is that xi seems to be taking the correct approach to dengism, and with it hopefully a superstructural adjustment. i hadn't exactly thought about what you said until now but it totally reads and is definitely a little concerning given the 80s 90s youth being the next to lead the way. again ironically if the commitment to the party line does end up being directed correctly it may in a weird way help to fix any lingering effects of revisionism as these contradictions face more and more scrutiny as the deadline of "socialism by 2050" approaches.

also just a sidenote but u and the other ktt users are prob the least brainwormed leftists ive met irl and online and i appreciate a lot of ur effort posts. like that one post about cybersyn s*** lit a lightbulb in my brain about things that ive always felt but never verbalized. plus that other post about how organization of society is not linear, and while not totally free to transition between organizations, disproves the barbarism - feudalism - slavery - capitalism doctrine in a way that i also felt but couldnt verbalize.

Womanpuncher69

5y

yeah cult of personalities have haunted communism, I know Stalin wasn't a fan of his, idk if or what Mao had said about the one around him.

One of things I'm not a huge of fan from Gonzalo Thought is the great leader theory, they justify it saying that every movement had a leader that synthesised and systemised the lessons learnt going like Lenin and Mao and even anarchist movements who were supposed to be against anything like that, with Makhno.

Though to me it seems to be an easy way to fall into cult of personality even if what they say is true

Womanpuncher69

5y

my problem with the socialism by 2050 or 2078 is what are the milestones they have to be defined as socialism by then, like if its some quantitative milestones then they can just push that back indefinitely, if its some qualitative ones then ill be more receptive.

americana

5y

At the end of the day I don’t really care about the party line as long as it aims to replace Euro-American capitalist hegemony and improve the living standards of workers in the “short term”

ARCADE GOON

5y

In real life a lot of the disputes should not matter. Like my opinion on what Lenin did 100 years ago doesn't really matter. It is a nice discussion to have and super interesting but what matters now first and foremost is to raise class consciousness, do some reforms, build some trust, win people to our causes, and educate them about the nature of capitalism and the need for a systemic change that reforms cannot bring about.

ARCADE GOON

5y

Gonzaloists go really overboard with the cult of personality, it is crazy. ALL GLORY TO THE ETERNAL LEADER and s*** like that graffiti'd on random walls on US campuses. It reminds me a bit of the DPRK. But at least Kim Il-Sung actually ruled over a country. Gonzalo was chilling in a jungle for 2 decades and then in a prison for 3 decades. It is incredibly goofy and corny.

My main problem with Maoism, besides all the historical mumbo jumbo, if I have to reflect upon it, is that economical issues are not as emphasized. IMO in the West this creates a similar clientele to anarchists and leftcoms But a lot of this internet beef shouldn't be important IRL.

The focus on Mao or Lenin or Trotsky or whatever is a bit misguided. In the western countries we are at such a low level of class consciousness that I welcome any leftism in rational political action. A lot of these separations especially Trotsky vs ML was also funded by the USA to drive a wedge between communists. "New Left" vs Marxist Left as well. There's an interesting CIA document about them promoting the New Left to harm the French communists

ARCADE GOON

5y

2050 they say will be "moderate socialism" which, knowing the CPC, is probably gonna be a Scandinavian type welfare state. They will actually start the transition in 2050 they say and reach it in 2078. Lmao.

Maybe if there is a civil war in 2049 this can happen otherwise why should the 100+ billionaires in the CPC just roll over like that?

americana

5y

· edited

Precisely. These debates are fun intellectual s*** but we should all be sharing similar goals and methods considering we exist within the same material framework of the US or developed modern Imperial Core, especially since we’re still at the fundamental first steps of Class Consc.

deadacc

5y

one reason i am partially hopeful is that xi seems to be taking the correct approach to dengism, and with it hopefully a superstructural adjustment. i hadn't exactly thought about what you said until now but it totally reads and is definitely a little concerning given the 80s 90s youth being the next to lead the way. again ironically if the commitment to the party line does end up being directed correctly it may in a weird way help to fix any lingering effects of revisionism as these contradictions face more and more scrutiny as the deadline of "socialism by 2050" approaches.

also just a sidenote but u and the other ktt users are prob the least brainwormed leftists ive met irl and online and i appreciate a lot of ur effort posts. like that one post about cybersyn s*** lit a lightbulb in my brain about things that ive always felt but never verbalized. plus that other post about how organization of society is not linear, and while not totally free to transition between organizations, disproves the barbarism - feudalism - slavery - capitalism doctrine in a way that i also felt but couldnt verbalize.

Womanpuncher69

5y

my problem with the socialism by 2050 or 2078 is what are the milestones they have to be defined as socialism by then, like if its some quantitative milestones then they can just push that back indefinitely, if its some qualitative ones then ill be more receptive.

Womanpuncher69

5y

I agree mostly but at some point these ideologies do have different methods like electorism, what class should we focus currently, do we need a new democracy? There should be struggle between comrades, but it should be more like unity struggle unity.

ARCADE GOON

5y

You are welcome my man. I am glad someone reads these posts and appreciates them. I don't remember the cybersyn post you talk about but it is a topic I am passionate about. I think planning the economy is super important and preferable to markets in the transition phase we call socialism. Planned economies have gotten a lot of bad rep over these years, but the technologies we have now are so different than what the Soviets had decades ago. I think cybernetic planning in combination with reforming the party structure would have saved the USSR had they done it in the 1970s.

A lot of ultraleftists disregard this and say "well we can just abolish the commodity form" and basically figure it out on the whim. The abolition of the commodity form however does not change the fact that time remains the scarcest resource for us, and that we have to organize our society in such a way that workers need to work as little as possible while still being able to reach our collective goals. Ultimately, workers should be able
to have as much free time as possible, up to a point where people work only because they want to and not because they have to. This goal can only be achieved through rational planning and increased automation.

Planning in general is our strongest tool in transitioning towards a communist mode of production. The anarchy of markets is irrational, they are unreliable, they depend on the profit motive, they react slowly to information. Instead, we must use the principles of cybernetics, the technologies of modern telecommunications and the demands of the populace to create, monitor and execute our economic plans.

Once we have a labor voucher system in place, automation will come about easier than under money. It is cheaper to pay someone in Asia pitiful wages than to automate at home, but what does it mean in terms of human labor time?

Tied together with planning is the abolition of money. For class to disappear, money must also disappear. Instead, we could for the organization of the economy use labor-vouchers that behave very differently than money, as they cannot circulate, so that no one can “make money out of money” anymore - all “passive income” such as interests and rents are merely the extraction of surplus value provided by actual labor.

Such an advanced form of planning is only possible if the means of productions are centrally owned by the state in its role as representative of the workers. This doesn't mean that there cannot be any worker inputs nor does it negate certain principles of self-management.

You could also implement voting systems into the planning mechanisms like Cockshott proposes

americana

5y

Like, Trotsky was a b**** for not rolling with Stalin over ideological differences despite both being ML. Stalin was a b**** for purging people for the sake of solidifying central leadership

Idgaf how necessary it may be to centralize and consolidate ideology. That shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Maybe it’s a liberal leftover of individualism. The worker is the first priority.

ARCADE GOON

5y

@Womanpuncher69 regarding how to deal with revisionism:

First of all, you cannot have full obedience to the party. This is bullshit. I talked to a member of the CPC's youth wing and she was full-on brain-washed. She said she will defend the wealth of Jack Ma because the party says that markets are necessary for pushing China's productive forces. I asked if China can't develop productive forces without having billionaires. She said it doesn't matter because the party decided so, the party represents her country, she loves her country and thus she loves the party. Now you might think this is just a singular anecdote but I have noticed that Chinese people have extreme obedience towards power, maybe this has historical roots stemming back to the imperial era.

The problem is this: If your party does things that we Marxists regard as good and you are totally loyal, then everything is fine. But what if the party gets co-opted by opportunists? Now, suddenly, following your party means following a revisionist line. Oops.

Therefore, there must be a real culture of democracy and discussion within these parties. China will not collapse overnight because they introduce more discussions and criticisms within the party.

Lenin did the faction ban because they were in a civil war. The situation in China today is not comparable to USSR 1921. There is no need to suppress genuine discussion.

Look at Western democracy: There is a pluralistic variety of opinions, but all within the Overton window of capitalism. The same thing could apply to any stable socialist nation: Have a lot of opinions within the Overton window of socialism.

This was actually the norm in the socialist movement up until 1921, for the Bolsheviks as well. A lot of people try to translate what Lenin decided during the Civil War into a time and space that is different.

ARCADE GOON

5y

@Womanpuncher69 regarding how to deal with revisionism:

First of all, you cannot have full obedience to the party. This is bullshit. I talked to a member of the CPC's youth wing and she was full-on brain-washed. She said she will defend the wealth of Jack Ma because the party says that markets are necessary for pushing China's productive forces. I asked if China can't develop productive forces without having billionaires. She said it doesn't matter because the party decided so, the party represents her country, she loves her country and thus she loves the party. Now you might think this is just a singular anecdote but I have noticed that Chinese people have extreme obedience towards power, maybe this has historical roots stemming back to the imperial era.

The problem is this: If your party does things that we Marxists regard as good and you are totally loyal, then everything is fine. But what if the party gets co-opted by opportunists? Now, suddenly, following your party means following a revisionist line. Oops.

Therefore, there must be a real culture of democracy and discussion within these parties. China will not collapse overnight because they introduce more discussions and criticisms within the party.

Lenin did the faction ban because they were in a civil war. The situation in China today is not comparable to USSR 1921. There is no need to suppress genuine discussion.

Look at Western democracy: There is a pluralistic variety of opinions, but all within the Overton window of capitalism. The same thing could apply to any stable socialist nation: Have a lot of opinions within the Overton window of socialism.

This was actually the norm in the socialist movement up until 1921, for the Bolsheviks as well. A lot of people try to translate what Lenin decided during the Civil War into a time and space that is different.

the reds

5y

No way are you caping for Pol Pot

ARCADE GOON

5y

You are welcome my man. I am glad someone reads these posts and appreciates them. I don't remember the cybersyn post you talk about but it is a topic I am passionate about. I think planning the economy is super important and preferable to markets in the transition phase we call socialism. Planned economies have gotten a lot of bad rep over these years, but the technologies we have now are so different than what the Soviets had decades ago. I think cybernetic planning in combination with reforming the party structure would have saved the USSR had they done it in the 1970s.

A lot of ultraleftists disregard this and say "well we can just abolish the commodity form" and basically figure it out on the whim. The abolition of the commodity form however does not change the fact that time remains the scarcest resource for us, and that we have to organize our society in such a way that workers need to work as little as possible while still being able to reach our collective goals. Ultimately, workers should be able
to have as much free time as possible, up to a point where people work only because they want to and not because they have to. This goal can only be achieved through rational planning and increased automation.

Planning in general is our strongest tool in transitioning towards a communist mode of production. The anarchy of markets is irrational, they are unreliable, they depend on the profit motive, they react slowly to information. Instead, we must use the principles of cybernetics, the technologies of modern telecommunications and the demands of the populace to create, monitor and execute our economic plans.

Once we have a labor voucher system in place, automation will come about easier than under money. It is cheaper to pay someone in Asia pitiful wages than to automate at home, but what does it mean in terms of human labor time?

Tied together with planning is the abolition of money. For class to disappear, money must also disappear. Instead, we could for the organization of the economy use labor-vouchers that behave very differently than money, as they cannot circulate, so that no one can “make money out of money” anymore - all “passive income” such as interests and rents are merely the extraction of surplus value provided by actual labor.

Such an advanced form of planning is only possible if the means of productions are centrally owned by the state in its role as representative of the workers. This doesn't mean that there cannot be any worker inputs nor does it negate certain principles of self-management.

You could also implement voting systems into the planning mechanisms like Cockshott proposes

krishna bound

5y

Look at Western democracy: There is a pluralistic variety of opinions, but all within the Overton window of capitalism. The same thing could apply to any stable socialist nation: Have a lot of opinions within the Overton window of socialism.

is it possible for there to be an overton window of socialism when the country doesn't exist in a vacuum though? If the world is still globally capitalist, and the opposing forces are vehemently capitalist, then doesn't an overton window existing virtually at all inherently skew toward the surrounding global norm? I think maybe 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, this wasn't the case, and it was easier to encourage a localized overton window on a population basis, but hasn't mass communication and general globalism basically eroded this ability? I basically agree though with the first part regardless, I just think this is something which is worth bearing in mind as food for thought

edit: quick edit but should add maybe a better way of putting it is "eroded this ability {so long as there is participation in any form of non-isolated global economy or such}" since if they were 100% isolated then yeah it would be a vacuum more or less functionally