Ask A Red: The IVth International

[ace99]

Where do all those numbers about how China owned 900000% of the world's GDP in the year 1479 come from then?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What, isn't it like 35% of all statistics are made up, anyway.

 

[ace99]

"98.3% of statistics, especially those used by online media, are made up." -Emperor Augustus Caesar.

 

[Masada]

Where do all those numbers about how China owned 900000% of the world's GDP in the year 1479 come from then?

Usually Angus Maddison. All you really need is population figures and the not unreasonable assumption that there wasn't a lot of variation in per capita GDP until fairly recently.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In the ROC, the bourgeoisie is the class in power. That is the main difference. The existing social order
is capitalism, and they are (currently) not a socialist government. My position is that the PRC is a socialist country, per my prior post, because there is a Communist Party at the head of a movement to build socialism, and a proletarian government installing a dictatorship of the proletariat.

So if the PRC is socialist because the ruling party is socialist, why not simply go with the British method, and just call a ruling party socialist?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Because the ruling party of China IS commnist, and as Engels wrote in the preface to the 1888 Germn edition of the Communist Manifesto,the term "Communism is used to delineate it from "Socialism," which at the time was a middle class movement, while Communism was a working class movement. The CPC was founded in 1922 (see the excellent Beginning of the Great Revival, about the founding of the CPC) and after 90 years, why change?
Plus, when we have Socialism, CPC believes --as I do -- that the state will wither away, and we'll have Communism.

 

[Azale]

The PRC is communist descriptively I guess, but I don't think that should be accepted. Descriptively the Nazis were a National Socialist party, but there is not a thing socialist about them.

We should change our own internal beliefs on the direction and power dynamics of the PRC because they have changed. Deng Xiaoping and his successors were frightened by maoist excesses and influenced by the state-directed authoritarian capitalist development taking place across East Asia.

The PRC, even before then and largely excluding the chaotic Cultural Revolution, were obsessed with growth and nationalism. The Korean War was a turning point in the cuddliness of the PRC (for which it was lauded during 1949's liberation of the cities) towards a rank oppressiveness embodied in a failed Marxist-Leninist vanguard and personality cult.

The PLA was ascendant after the restoration of order in the 70s iirc (and arguably remains so), and I tend to associate the warrior "class" and all their psuedo-mystical individualist baggage with conservatives. I see the ruling class of the PRC as deeply conservative. They fear the rumblings of the lower orders and repress them accordingly. They have succumbed to the conceits of modern meritocracy, and the military and capitalism as battlegrounds for superiority. They amp up nationalism, so that the mass have a spiritual stake in the ruling class.

The Chinese, according to their rulers, were not ready for democracy back when Xiaoping first came on the scene, nor are they now. When will they? Probably when the Politburo is burned to the ground (metaphorically I guess) and the Great Hall of the People becomes more than a rubber stamp.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The above post form Azale is Azale's opinion. As a Marxist-Leninist I am obliged to defend China, an existing socialist republic, especially since I am in the most Un-Democratic nation in North America.

Keep in mind, China does what no other nation in the world, even India, does: feed 1.3 billion people each day. See This article from UNDP on China's hegemony in reaching Millenneum goals.

See also This Article which, while admitting China had much progress to make in economic equality between rural and had this to say:

Generally speaking, China has made enormous progress towards the achievement of its MDGs. Since 1990, poverty, especially absolute poverty in rural areas, has been greatly reduced. China has now achieved the target of halving the number of poor people from the 1990 figure of 85 million. Current national poverty reduction efforts target both absolute and relative populations. Some of the MDG targets such as primary education have already been achieved 13 years ahead of schedule. The mortality rate of children under five dropped from 61 per 1,000 births in 1991 to 17.2 in 2009. The maternal mortality ratio has dropped from 80 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 31.9 in 2009. The Government of China supports international development cooperation as a means of narrowing the gap between North and South. The Government supports maintaining and improving the multilateral trade system to create a favorable trade environment for developing countries.

And, for this who would like to know how the CPC works, try How and Why the CPC Works in China. You will find that the 21st Century is a long way from 1949.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And thus we get back to the "China is good because it implements Paternalistic policies", so what, other then who's in the ruling party, makes it more socialist then the ROC?

All the world needs to achieve communism is a change in party names.

 

[timtofly]

Is it possible to be a classless society and consume luxury goods?

 

[dutchfire]

As a Marxist-Leninist I am obliged to defend China

See, this is where you go wrong.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

And thus we get back to the "China is good because it implements Paternalistic policies", so what, other then who's in the ruling party, makes it more socialist then the ROC?

All the world needs to achieve communism is a change in party names.

Not so. ROC current government and the PRC have different goals, currently.

China's programs are NOT "Paternalistic," they are the combined work of many of the various groupings in China that make up the government, and who have input in China's governance.

Taiwan/ ROC is still technically a province of China. And while its government has a multi-party system and democratic process, their ruling Nationalisty Party, the KMT is not socialist. They are not building a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an interesting page on Taiwan's CURRENT government (which until 1987 was under martial law).

China's Government, as you will note in my citations, under the CPC is Internationalist. However, the point is what PRC is building as the end result of these socialist programs -- which is eventually communism.

See The System of Multi-Party Cooperation and Political Consultation article that explains the Chinese system.

The multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China is a basic political system in China.

The system means that the CPC is the only party in power in the People's Republic of China while under the precondition of accepting the leadership of the CPC, the eight other political parties participate in the discussion and management of state affairs, in cooperation with the CPC.

Political consultation means that under the leadership of the CPC, all parties, mass organizations and representatives from all walks of life take part in consultations of the country's basic policies and important issues in political, economic, cultural and social affairs before a decision is adopted and in the discussion of major issues in the implementation of the decisions.

Political consultation takes the organizational form of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Political consultation is the most important political and organization form of the multi-party and political consultation system.

Cooperative relations between the CPC and other political parties are based on the principle of "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision, treating each other with full sincerity and sharing weal or woe."

Is it possible to be a classless society and consume luxury goods?

I think that by the time we have a classless society the basic needs of the population will be met, so , yeah, there will be consumption of luxury goods. No one's taking away my tablet!

Check out Edward Bellamy's Looking Backwards for a vivid visualization of that classless society.

See, this is where you go wrong.

Hardly. What went wrong is the Sino-Soviet split and the fall of the USSR. Cooperation between socialist nations is essential. The USSR went "soft" on communism and did not keep up the kind of political education needed to maintain an educated, revolutionary proletariat. Instead, they tried to compete on the capitalist playing field. China is laying sod on it own playing field and burying the US with a socialist economy. Now, what was the question?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not so. ROC current government and the PRC have different goals, currently.

China's programs are NOT "Paternalistic," they are the combined work of many of the various groupings in China that make up the government, and who have input in China's governance.

Taiwan/ ROC is still technically a province of China. And while its government has a multi-party system and democratic process, their ruling Nationalisty Party, the KMT is not socialist. They are not building a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well yes, but all they need is a coat of paint. If we rename, or even translate the Koumintang differently, we have a socialist party in power, which is the important thing.

 

[Praise_Satan]

Why do all the current "socialist republics" suck so badly in press freedom?
Is there free speech in these socialist republics? No. Why not?
What is wrong with a government that has to deny it's people freedom of speech? Is that not oppression of the masses? Oppression of the working man, the proletariat?

I remember from reading history that when the pinkos pro-soviet socialists had some political power after the war, they took measures to ban some antisoviet texts. It didn't go too far but still to me it sounds like the nazies book burnings. Same thing really. *barf*

Edit: The Soviets even wanted books banned here. WTF. Demanding a sovereign state to censor books... and threatening with consequences. Books were burned at the commies demands. Disgusting.

 

[Crezth]

I'm not really authorized to answer questions in this thread but that's a loaded question. As if so-called socialist governments are the only ones with histories of authoritarian tendencies. Large swaths of Europe now adhere moreorless to socialist principles and are lovely places to live.

The argument is better phrased as "why do ruling classes suck so badly in respecting the freedom of the ruled classes" and, surprisingly, is not limited to countries that self-describe as socialist.

The ideal communist society would have no classes and thus the argument is deflected totally. There'd be no restriction of press freedom because there'd be no restrictions, period.

M-L's will disagree with this approach for doctrinal reasons but the ultimate goal is the same - the abolishment of exploitation of man by man.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you think about negative income tax as a solution?

As a direct source of wealth redistribution? I'm not sure. My impulse is not to like it, though. I know Thomas Paine suggested a sort of "Citizen's Dividend" in Agrarian Justice (a communist pamphlet if there ever was one!), since he was firmly against private ownership of land, but his concept was linked specifically to yields from the land, which is different from a direct wealth transfer payment.

I do, however, know that I support tax credits for lower income people, such as the EIC, if you remember from your tax filings a few years ago.
So my answer is a nebulous "maybe." Sorry.

Has there ever been, to take the logic of these governments "building communism", communists who defend Western Bloc countries as superior "communists" for their paternalism?

There's a great Zizek article about "liberal communists" which attacks the supposed philanthropists who "do so much for humanity." He uses the term ironically, because of peoples' attitudes about the "good" being done by these people and their charities and other sorts of "charity built into consumerism" programs. I can't think of someone, except maybe Basketcase, honestly arguing that capitalists are better communists than the communists are, though there is certainly no shortage of people who think that capitalism better serves the needs and wants of people and leaves them better off than communism does.

As a Marxist-Leninist I am obliged to defend China.

I am not. Perhaps in the future, the PRC will begin to behave like communists and start turning power over to the working class, and actively destroying the capitalist order. They are not right now. When that day comes, I will happily praise their grand scheme of utilizing capitalism to suit socialist ends, but until such realities materialize before me, I cannot and will not call the PRC socialist or the CCP communist, or endorse either of them.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Why do all the current "socialist republics" suck so badly in press freedom?
Is there free speech in these socialist republics? No. Why not?
What is wrong with a government that has to deny it's people freedom of speech? Is that not oppression of the masses? Oppression of the working man, the proletariat?

I'm not really authorized to answer questions in this thread but that's a loaded question. As if so-called socialist governments are the only ones with histories of authoritarian tendencies. Large swaths of Europe now adhere moreorless to socialist principles and are lovely places to live.

The argument is better phrased as "why do ruling classes suck so badly in respecting the freedom of the ruled classes" and, surprisingly, is not limited to countries that self-describe as socialist.

The ideal communist society would have no classes and thus the argument is deflected totally. There'd be no restriction of press freedom because there'd be no restrictions, period.

M-L's will disagree with this approach for doctrinal reasons but the ultimate goal is the same - the abolishment of exploitation of man by man.

Crezth, I AM authorized to answer questions in this thread and I happen to agree with you -- and I am also a Maxist-Leninist.

One of the reasons I do not bandy about the current hackneyed formula in my material world is because of the stigma attached to that the terms have become so stigmatized that no one understandss what you mean when you say Socialism or Communism. However, when I say "Do you see how 'X' government policy is costing us jobs and lives?" I get much more agreement. People have an easier time accepting socialism after you have negated capitalism. That's dialectics in a nutshell. There is a war along class lines, and as adversaries level themselves against each other, one usually wins. The excitin thing is that within each socio-economic system lies the seeds of its own destruction -- a class that rises to replace the ruling class. The slave system gave way to feudalism, autocrats gave way to landed nobility, nobility gave way to the bourgeoisie.

Under capitalism, the rising class is the proletariat, they replace the ruling bourgeoisie.

However, in each of these systems there is an exploited and an exploiter.

Frankly, I think socialist nations like Cuba, China -- yes China, like it or not, is socialist to its people and to the world -- Viet Nam, Venezuela give far more freedom of speech and the press than we have in the United States, where Dan Rather -- Bush 43 apologist -- was fired for speaking ON AIR against the "line" of the administration, whereas in Venezuela before the 2002 coup, anti-government TV stations could say anything they wanted against the government. Globovision still can and still does.

The truth is, Crezth, that ALL governments are class dictatorships. All governments make mistakes. There are no finished communists or communist parties.

That is why under communism, which I may never see in my lifetime, will have no oppression -- and ergo no suppression of free speech or of any endeavour.

I think that's worth fighting for. Unfortunately, it means fighting. I am not armed -- it is a battle of ideas -- and I am confident world conditions faor socialism, and are unfavorable to capitalism.

 

[Crezth]

The truth is, Crezth, that ALL governments are class dictatorships. All governments make mistakes. There are no finished communists or communist parties.

That was the gist of what I was getting at, yes.

 

[Praise_Satan]

I'm not really authorized to answer questions in this thread but that's a loaded question. As if so-called socialist governments are the only ones with histories of authoritarian tendencies. Large swaths of Europe now adhere moreorless to socialist principles and are lovely places to live.

The argument is better phrased as "why do ruling classes suck so badly in respecting the freedom of the ruled classes" and, surprisingly, is not limited to countries that self-describe as socialist.

The ideal communist society would have no classes and thus the argument is deflected totally. There'd be no restriction of press freedom because there'd be no restrictions, period.

M-L's will disagree with this approach for doctrinal reasons but the ultimate goal is the same - the abolishment of exploitation of man by man.

"The ideal communist society..." Getting there by burning books. Murder, cleanse, jail or censor those who disagree with the "Father", the ruler and the ideology. Right... *barf*

No matter what the ultimate goal, it led to the oppression of the masses. Disgusting.

Why do socialist republics suck so badly in press freedom? That's the problem with these "republics".

 

[Masada]

Question. Do you also dismiss Liberal Democracy as a political and economic system for having also "oppress[ed]... the masses"?