Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[_random_]

Can you talk a bit about why so much stuff sold in America is made in China and Vietnam? Obviously the labor is cheaper there, but why is that the case? And why do those communist governments let foreign capitalists go in and build sneaker and smartphone factories? I get that this is a pretty broad question and probably requires some historical background I don't really have, so if either of you could just point me in the right direction so I can annoy you with more specific questions that'd be rad.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The Chinese and Vietnamese economies work differently than a US or Euro economy. Food and living expenses, education and health care are practically free. Transportation is cheap. All this is because once the profit and extraction of surplus value is removed from those commodities, you can afford them.

I recommend to you three relatively short and great works by Marx that explain this:
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Wage Labour and Capital
Value, Price, Profit

 

[Agent327]

Leaving apart that transportation is a service, not a commodity, what now is the answer to the questions? As I doubt we'll find something about sneaker and smart phone factories in 19th century philosophical works.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can you talk a bit about why so much stuff sold in America is made in China and Vietnam? Obviously the labor is cheaper there, but why is that the case? And why do those communist governments let foreign capitalists go in and build sneaker and smartphone factories? I get that this is a pretty broad question and probably requires some historical background I don't really have, so if either of you could just point me in the right direction so I can annoy you with more specific questions that'd be rad.

Especially with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc (and in China the defeat of the Cultural Revolution and the rise of the revisionist elements led by Deng Xiaoping), socialist countries have had to accommodate themselves to a changing domestic and geopolitical situation. Two things have happened to communist countries since 1991: they have either accommodated themselves to foreign capital, like China, Vietnam, Laos, and more recently Cuba, or they they have chosen autarky and become an international pariah, like DPRK. Putting aside the unique situation of the 1990s in DPRK, they still occupy a far less enviable position than any other socialist country, and their unwillingness to trade or allow the growth of the capitalist sector in their economy is no small part of that. They're hostile to foreign capital, and that is why we are taught to hate and fear them.

So the choice wasn't so much "why do these communist countries let capitalists do this to their people" so much as "what other reasonable course of action could these governments have been expected to take in the late 80s and post-Soviet world?"

And now the Chinese control essential parts of the US economy while managing to retain control over their own state at the same time. Oops.

 

[Gary Childress]

Leaving apart that transportation is a service, not a commodity, what now is the answer to the questions? As I doubt we'll find something about sneaker and smart phone factories in 19th century philosophical works.

In economics, a commodity is a substantially fungible marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs.[1] Economic commodities comprise goods and services.[2] [My emphasis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

Perhaps you are confusing "commodity" with "goods"?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It doesn't matter. It was a technicality that Agent was trying to make trouble by pretending was a "gotcha" point. Nobody cares, point is that people get access to it as a public good and it makes peoples' lives better.

 

[Gary Childress]

It was a technicality that Agent was trying to make trouble by pretending was a "gotcha" point.

Yes. I gathered that. I thought it was worth pointing out that Agent was wrong, though (since no one else bothered to).

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Thanks, Gary. You are, perhaps the most courteous person on this forum. I always endeavour to answer you questions.

 

[Gary Childress]

Two part question for the panel:

Part one: I'm curious if Marx ever wrote anything in reference to Socrates (that you all may be aware of)? And if so what was Marx's appraisal of Socrates? Or what did Marx have to say about him specifically, if anything?

Second part of the question, irrespective of whether or whatever Marx may have written of Socrates, what is your own assessment of Socrates, and do you think of Socrates as someone worth emulating in our own lives, to whatever degree?

Some extra context:

What sparked this question is that I was reading a little about the term lumpenproletariat on Wiki (especially a citation in the article from Marx describing what he meant by the term):

Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.[3]

Lumpenproletariat is a term that was originally coined by Karl Marx to describe the layer of the working class that is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

I sort of gather, since Socrates was for much of his life essentially a property-less unemployed former soldier and surely not specifically working toward any sort of revolutionary objectives in terms of overthrowing the privileged class, that Marx would have considered him to be part of the lumpenproletariat (essentially misguided to whatever extent and possessing "false consciousness")? I know I.F. Stone wrote a book a while back called The Trial of Socrates where he essentially painted Socrates as no friend of Democracy and the working class.

Personally, I've sort of been brought up in my own education to hold Socrates in great esteem and am interested in hearing some of the thoughts of "Reds" here regarding him.

 

[Gary Childress]

Thanks, Gary. You are, perhaps the most courteous person on this forum. I always endeavour to answer you questions.

You are most welcome RT. I am also thankful that you have always taken the courtesy and time to answer my questions.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Two part question for the panel:

Part one: I'm curious if Marx ever wrote anything in reference to Socrates (that you all may be aware of)? And if so what was Marx's appraisal of Socrates? Or what did Marx have to say about him specifically, if anything?

Second part of the question, irrespective of whether or whatever Marx may have written of Socrates, what is your own assessment of Socrates, and do you think of Socrates as someone worth emulating in our own lives, to whatever degree?

Some extra context:

What sparked this question is that I was reading a little about the term lumpenproletariat on Wiki (especially a citation in the article from Marx describing what he meant by the term):





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

I sort of gather, since Socrates was for much of his life essentially a property-less unemployed former soldier and surely not specifically working toward any sort of revolutionary objectives in terms of overthrowing the privileged class, that Marx would have considered him to be part of the lumpenproletariat (essentially misguided and possessing "false consciousness")? I know I.F. Stone wrote a book a while back called The Trial of Socrates where he essentially painted Socrates as no friend of Democracy and the working class.

Personally, I've sort of been brought up in my own education to hold Socrates in great esteem and am interested in hearing some of the thoughts of "Reds" here regarding him.

If I have more time and a laptop later, I can give you a fuller answer, but in regards to Reds on Socrates, our debates focus on the "Socratic Method" of arguing posititions until a consensus is reached on the outcome. The dialectical method of the Marxist-Leninist is derived from the Greek dialego which is "debate." The idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of Hegel came from Socrates.

As for the lumpenproletariat: like all classes, there are objective, material factors, like income, employment and social conditions; and there are subjective factors, like how you identify yourself. Wealthy people can choose to side with the Proletariat (as Fidel and Raúl Castro did) as well as the homeless unemployed. It is a "being" v. "becoming" issue.

I don't have a handy link, but Bruce Franklin's "The Lumpenproletariat and the Revolutionary Youth Movement" is a helpful 20th Century take on this subject.

 

[Gary Childress]

I don't have a handy link, but Bruce Franklin's "The Lumpenproletariat and the Revolutionary Youth Movement" is a helpful 20th Century take on this subject.

Thanks. I think I found a link. Interesting article. Maybe a bit "sobering" too (coming from things as a member of the lumpenproletariat, I suppose):

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/red-papers-2/franklin.htm

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Perfect!

 

[Daw]

our debates focus on the "Socratic Method"

That was also emphasized in my teacher's training as the best approach ever

That's regardless if you endeavor for conclusions yourself or help others to reach to the conclusions someone has already come to. Question anything there is left to question until there're no more questions, only answers. Then it's "Rinse and repeat", as a friend of mine used to say.

 

[_random_]

Especially with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc (and in China the defeat of the Cultural Revolution and the rise of the revisionist elements led by Deng Xiaoping), socialist countries have had to accommodate themselves to a changing domestic and geopolitical situation. Two things have happened to communist countries since 1991: they have either accommodated themselves to foreign capital, like China, Vietnam, Laos, and more recently Cuba, or they they have chosen autarky and become an international pariah, like DPRK. Putting aside the unique situation of the 1990s in DPRK, they still occupy a far less enviable position than any other socialist country, and their unwillingness to trade or allow the growth of the capitalist sector in their economy is no small part of that. They're hostile to foreign capital, and that is why we are taught to hate and fear them.

So the choice wasn't so much "why do these communist countries let capitalists do this to their people" so much as "what other reasonable course of action could these governments have been expected to take in the late 80s and post-Soviet world?"

And now the Chinese control essential parts of the US economy while managing to retain control over their own state at the same time. Oops.

Thanks for answering. If I may follow up, why does the participation of capitalists in their economy seem to be so poorly regulated? I understand why being open to foreign markets might be a matter of pragmatism, but does that necessitate allowing child labor and long working hours that wouldn't fly in the First World? Or is that actually an unfair characterization of working conditions in those countries?

Along those lines, I know a lot of people will boycott e.g. Nike due to their use of sweatshop labor. Are there any companies you boycott? Or do you feel like that just legitimizes the notion of "voting with your wallet" and capitalism by proxy? Is there indeed no ethical consumption under capitalism?

 

[Agent327]

Especially with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc (and in China the defeat of the Cultural Revolution and the rise of the revisionist elements led by Deng Xiaoping), socialist countries have had to accommodate themselves to a changing domestic and geopolitical situation. Two things have happened to communist countries since 1991: they have either accommodated themselves to foreign capital, like China, Vietnam, Laos, and more recently Cuba, or they they have chosen autarky and become an international pariah, like DPRK. Putting aside the unique situation of the 1990s in DPRK, they still occupy a far less enviable position than any other socialist country, and their unwillingness to trade or allow the growth of the capitalist sector in their economy is no small part of that. They're hostile to foreign capital, and that is why we are taught to hate and fear them.

Leaving apart that the Cultural Revolution wasn't an economic policy, and the only reason I can think of to hate the North Korean regime would be their complete disregard of the rights of their population (I guess I haven't been taught well), this seems at least a better attempt at an answer than referencing 19th century books.

Incidentally, if North Korea has anything resembling autarky that's not the result of any policy (it depended for a while on Soviet and Chinese subsidies), but rather of the Soviet collapse, which also collapsed Soviet satellite trade.

Oh, and feel free to respond with another unnecessary quip. (I guess that's supposed to be 'Socratic method' or something).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thanks for answering. If I may follow up, why does the participation of capitalists in their economy seem to be so poorly regulated? I understand why being open to foreign markets might be a matter of pragmatism, but does that necessitate allowing child labor and long working hours that wouldn't fly in the First World? Or is that actually an unfair characterization of working conditions in those countries?

It's not state capitalism, it's a capitalist sector in a socialist country. As in all capitalism, the government is limited in what it can do to regulate capitalist enterprises. The allowance of child labor is horrific, but it's limited to two things: one, to agriculture [as in a great many countries], and two, to the capitalist sector [there are still small instances like in state schools, but that's also something seen in other places too].

Overall yes, I think that pointing to The West and saying "see, we got rid of this stuff but they haven't, clearly we're better and they're fake communists" is a nonsensical action. It ignores the fact that pollution and child labor and long working hours all exist and were/are such prevalent problems in those countries because of capitalism in the first place.

It's worth mentioning that, while the capitalist sector is so pollutive, the state sector has seen by far the largest investment in clean energy on the planet. So it's not like the Chinese government doesn't care or doesn't know about these problems, but more that it is paralyzed in addressing them right now. Holding up an ideal of what you think communism "should" be and what a given socialist country *is* and saying that they're not the same and therefore they are frauds, is disingenuous. Against idealism, reality always comes in a distant second-place.

Along those lines, I know a lot of people will boycott e.g. Nike due to their use of sweatshop labor. Are there any companies you boycott? Or do you feel like that just legitimizes the notion of "voting with your wallet" and capitalism by proxy? Is there indeed no ethical consumption under capitalism?

There is indeed no ethical consumption under capitalism. I think BDS is a decent idea but it's not going to change anything by itself. I refuse to shame people for lifestyle choices and consumption habits when the alternatives to that behavior is not accessible to everyone.

 

[_random_]

It's not state capitalism, it's a capitalist sector in a socialist country. As in all capitalism, the government is limited in what it can do to regulate capitalist enterprises. The allowance of child labor is horrific, but it's limited to two things: one, to agriculture [as in a great many countries], and two, to the capitalist sector [there are still small instances like in state schools, but that's also something seen in other places too].

Overall yes, I think that pointing to The West and saying "see, we got rid of this stuff but they haven't, clearly we're better and they're fake communists" is a nonsensical action. It ignores the fact that pollution and child labor and long working hours all exist and were/are such prevalent problems in those countries because of capitalism in the first place.

And to clarify, I'm not making the comparison to push some narrative of Western supremacy. Certainly the bulk of the blame for the practices lies with the capitalists. I guess my question is more about why there seems to be so little regulation in the capitalist sectors of socialist countries. Is it something state actors generally want to implement? If so, what obstacles do they face?

 

[madviking]

Does Marxism imply any particular metaethical position(s)?

 

[aelf]

Probably consequentialism. But Marx's teleology strongly implies the need to treat a person as a kingdom of ends - except that that's in the final phase and doing it now wouldn't work.