Your assertion that people on average knowingly work against their own self-interest requires mountains of evidence. All of human history points to the opposite.
As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it does not mean the proletariat led by a dictator, but the entire class of the proletariat above the rest of the classes. It means a democratic society run by and for workers, with no political power allowed to landlords, fascists, capitalists, etc. as a class. This is basic Marxism.
As for the USSR, it indeed did fail, and it did so largely because reforms under Gorbachev undermined the socialist system, and because Yeltsin and his clique destroyed it from within. It did not need to dissolve, it was killed from above.
As for China, you’re nakedly wrong.
In China, the backbone of the economy is in the public sector, in huge State Owned Enterprises. The large firms and key industries in China are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership is relegated to small industry and highly competitive industries. As for working hours, the average is between 40 and 48 hours, usually hovering around 44-46. 996 is illegal, was largely in big tech firms, and is overall rare.
The PRC is a socialist state, not a state capitalist state like the Republic of Korea, US Empire, or Singapore. China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:
But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”
…
The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.
…
“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”
How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
To dogmatically collectivize the entire economy would actually be a move undesirable by Marxist standards. Certain economies like the DPRK and USSR have had to do so in order to develop military deterrence, China managed to negotiate itself into the global economy and take advantage of the utility of markets in socializing the small industries, making them ripe for central planning.
As for Cuba, their economy isn’t what’s preventing them from trading with the world, it’s a brutal embargo by the US Empire. Cuba has and does trade with friendly countries, it is being actively impeded by the US. Despite this, life expectancy often exceeds even the US, because their socialist system makes low resources stretch farther.
I cannot understate this: you have no idea what you are talking about, be it about Marxism or socialism in practice.
People largely partake as coping mechanisms or to fit in with groups etc. which would be in their immediate perceived interest of coping, fitting in etc.
Failure to address global warming?
Addressing global warming would impact the bottom lines of the capitalist class and thus be against their interest as a class of constant accumulation and expansion to among other things fight the falling rate of profit.
Nuclear proliferation?
Having nuclear weapons is directly in the self interest of states that wish to remain sovereign and not be destroyed by the western US lead empire as has been proved repeatedly.
political class.
Not a thing. Class is predicated on relation to the means of production mainly the ability/lack there of to privately own productive property and appropriate surplus value as capital.
So much for the democratic system you claimed existed. It’s almost like that is an inherently failing of Marxis
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. If the USSRs collapse was due to an inherent issue with Marxism why hasn’t the PRC collapsed? Or is it possible the USSR faced challenges unique to their position and situation which lead to stagnation and eventually being pillaged as opposed to some inherent part of Marxism (which you seem incapable of pointing to beyond vague posting).
No country has ever gone beyond the developing stages of socialism because Marx was wrong.
If you just say this without elaborating on the how and in what way it’s meaningless. Also Marxism wasn’t jesus or some prophet Marxism doesn’t end with Marx it continues with Lenin Stalin Mao Xi Cheng Xie Losurdo and more who continue to this day to study and develop.
In the nicest way possible you seem to very clearly have very little idea of what you’re talking about and be way out of your depth leading you to do lots of vague posting.
People largely partake as coping mechanisms or to fit in with groups etc. which would be in their immediate perceived interest of coping, fitting in etc.
They still know it is against their best interests.
Addressing global warming would impact the bottom lines of the capitalist class and thus be against their interest as a class of constant accumulation and expansion to among other things fight the falling rate of profit.
See previous answer.
Having nuclear weapons is directly in the self interest of states that wish to remain sovereign and not be destroyed by the western US lead empire as has been proved repeatedly.
It is against the best interest of humanity as a whole and we all know it.
Not a thing. Class is predicated on relation to the means of production mainly the ability/lack there of to privately own productive property and appropriate surplus value as capital.
It’s a thing in reality. It’s not a thing in Marxism which is another fault of the philosophy. The political class controls the capital that ostensibly belongs to the people. On reality they often wield the power of that capital for their own ends. This is true regardless of the economic system.
If the USSRs collapse was due to an inherent issue with Marxism why hasn’t the PRC collapsed?
Because the PRC Isn’t Marxist. It is a totalitarian dictatorship run for the benefit of the ruling class where the people are little more than serfs toiling for their local lords. The whole “communism” thing is an opiate similar to religion which encourages people to make personal sacrifices and not rise up.
If you just say this without elaborating on the how and in what way it’s meaningless.
One of the central points of Marxism is that socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. This has never happened.
Because the PRC Isn’t Marxist. It is a totalitarian dictatorship run for the benefit of the ruling class where the people are little more than serfs toiling for their local lords. The whole “communism” thing is an opiate similar to religion which encourages people to make personal sacrifices and not rise up.
What is it with you whiteys calling me and my family serfs and your complete lack of understanding of my country. I wish I could understand how you could be so racist and dimwitted while speaking so confidently it’s truly impressive.
One of the central points of Marxism is that socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. This has never happened.
Wow the transition has yet to complete so thus isn’t real. Genuinely impressively dense.
You really are just coping hard and further proving you have no understanding of Marxism how people view their interests as a class or really anything outside your white liberal bubble.
It is an objective fact that Chinese citizens have no right to free speech. Nothing I have said is racist. The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just shows you know I am right.
It is an objective fact that Chinese citizens have no right to free speech
Yeah I guess my visits to the local offices with complaints and criticisms just never happened, I guess the 12345 hotline just doesn’t exist please tell me more white saviour educate me on my country.
Nothing I have said is racist.
Nothing racist at all about you spreading orientalist nonsense calling Chinese people serfs and generally being a white saviour pig /s
The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just shows you know I am right.
I’m not “resorting to personal attacks” I just see no need in being polite to chauvinist white saviour pigs who are comfortable with talking down on entire races and ethnicities with unmatched arrogance to accompany their less than 0 understanding.
Your assertion that people on average knowingly work against their own self-interest requires mountains of evidence. All of human history points to the opposite.
As for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it does not mean the proletariat led by a dictator, but the entire class of the proletariat above the rest of the classes. It means a democratic society run by and for workers, with no political power allowed to landlords, fascists, capitalists, etc. as a class. This is basic Marxism.
As for the USSR, it indeed did fail, and it did so largely because reforms under Gorbachev undermined the socialist system, and because Yeltsin and his clique destroyed it from within. It did not need to dissolve, it was killed from above.
As for China, you’re nakedly wrong.
In China, the backbone of the economy is in the public sector, in huge State Owned Enterprises. The large firms and key industries in China are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership is relegated to small industry and highly competitive industries. As for working hours, the average is between 40 and 48 hours, usually hovering around 44-46. 996 is illegal, was largely in big tech firms, and is overall rare.
The PRC is a socialist state, not a state capitalist state like the Republic of Korea, US Empire, or Singapore. China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:
How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
To dogmatically collectivize the entire economy would actually be a move undesirable by Marxist standards. Certain economies like the DPRK and USSR have had to do so in order to develop military deterrence, China managed to negotiate itself into the global economy and take advantage of the utility of markets in socializing the small industries, making them ripe for central planning.
As for Cuba, their economy isn’t what’s preventing them from trading with the world, it’s a brutal embargo by the US Empire. Cuba has and does trade with friendly countries, it is being actively impeded by the US. Despite this, life expectancy often exceeds even the US, because their socialist system makes low resources stretch farther.
I cannot understate this: you have no idea what you are talking about, be it about Marxism or socialism in practice.
Alcoholism and drug addiction? Failure to address global warming? Nuclear proliferation?
And the proletariat was below the political class.
So much for the democratic system you claimed existed. It’s almost like that is an inherently failing of Marxism.
No country has ever gone beyond the developing stages of socialism because Marx was wrong.
People largely partake as coping mechanisms or to fit in with groups etc. which would be in their immediate perceived interest of coping, fitting in etc.
Addressing global warming would impact the bottom lines of the capitalist class and thus be against their interest as a class of constant accumulation and expansion to among other things fight the falling rate of profit.
Having nuclear weapons is directly in the self interest of states that wish to remain sovereign and not be destroyed by the western US lead empire as has been proved repeatedly.
Not a thing. Class is predicated on relation to the means of production mainly the ability/lack there of to privately own productive property and appropriate surplus value as capital.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. If the USSRs collapse was due to an inherent issue with Marxism why hasn’t the PRC collapsed? Or is it possible the USSR faced challenges unique to their position and situation which lead to stagnation and eventually being pillaged as opposed to some inherent part of Marxism (which you seem incapable of pointing to beyond vague posting).
If you just say this without elaborating on the how and in what way it’s meaningless. Also Marxism wasn’t jesus or some prophet Marxism doesn’t end with Marx it continues with Lenin Stalin Mao Xi Cheng Xie Losurdo and more who continue to this day to study and develop.
In the nicest way possible you seem to very clearly have very little idea of what you’re talking about and be way out of your depth leading you to do lots of vague posting.
They still know it is against their best interests.
See previous answer.
It is against the best interest of humanity as a whole and we all know it.
It’s a thing in reality. It’s not a thing in Marxism which is another fault of the philosophy. The political class controls the capital that ostensibly belongs to the people. On reality they often wield the power of that capital for their own ends. This is true regardless of the economic system.
Because the PRC Isn’t Marxist. It is a totalitarian dictatorship run for the benefit of the ruling class where the people are little more than serfs toiling for their local lords. The whole “communism” thing is an opiate similar to religion which encourages people to make personal sacrifices and not rise up.
One of the central points of Marxism is that socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. This has never happened.
What is it with you whiteys calling me and my family serfs and your complete lack of understanding of my country. I wish I could understand how you could be so racist and dimwitted while speaking so confidently it’s truly impressive.
Wow the transition has yet to complete so thus isn’t real. Genuinely impressively dense.
You really are just coping hard and further proving you have no understanding of Marxism how people view their interests as a class or really anything outside your white liberal bubble.
Because my country allows free speech and I can speak the truth, unlike you.
Just showing how completely uninformed and racist you are. Politely go fuck yourself pig.
It is an objective fact that Chinese citizens have no right to free speech. Nothing I have said is racist. The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just shows you know I am right.
Yeah I guess my visits to the local offices with complaints and criticisms just never happened, I guess the 12345 hotline just doesn’t exist please tell me more white saviour educate me on my country.
Nothing racist at all about you spreading orientalist nonsense calling Chinese people serfs and generally being a white saviour pig /s
I’m not “resorting to personal attacks” I just see no need in being polite to chauvinist white saviour pigs who are comfortable with talking down on entire races and ethnicities with unmatched arrogance to accompany their less than 0 understanding.