/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Tbh, I'm more partial to the Chingchong model.

I thought this was an asian edit of Nigel Farrage

>>2625032
>What are your thoughts on the (now old) Chongqing model
Seems based. From what I've read, it's essentially delegating private enterprise's roles to public ones, aswell as highly redistributive policies alongside maoist culture & tightening security.
It seems a lot like Singaporean model, minus the maoist cultural aspect, where the city essentially owns housing, transit, infrastructure etc but allows for unregulated markets where it doesn't impact their citizens.

>I'm also interested in how increased profits from SOEs might have prevented some deficit spending.
The problem with high-profit rate SOEs is that they don't offer actual reasons to be invested in by customers rather than private ones. If for instance your housing SOE charges the same price for rent as your typical landlord does, odds are that people won't gravitate towards your service. This is especially true given that many bourgeois will often lower prices or hold up capital investment until the gov change their policies (see : buenos aires' housing). High-profit SOEs can work in specific sectors where they essentially outpace competition, like high tech for instance. These high-capital sectors can be somewhat monopolized by the state by virtue of being very capital-intensive, and can have decent profit rates aslong as they dispose of good management.

>perhaps caused some deficit spending
You should read up on the MMT. Deficit spending isn't an issue as long as your economy can produce more goods than their is money in circulation.
In MMT, inflation occurs when aggregate spending (especially by the government) exceeds the economy’s productive capacity. So, as long as you have productive structures yielding good results, deficits (& inflation really) aren't a big problem.

>>2628688
You are regurgitating Modern Monetary Theory propaganda, i.e., Chartalism, which is incompatible with Marxist theory. Money is not an independent creator of value, and value is determined by socially necessary labor time. Money is merely the representative of that value. MMT mistakenly treats money as the primary causal force, whereas Marxism shows that production and the exploitation of labor precede and determine the value of money. Printing money does not create more value; it merely redistributes existing value, often leading to inflation when it exceeds the production of commodities. The capitalist state may control the issuance of currency, but it cannot control its value. Capitalist production is driven by profitability, not state spending. If profits are falling, no amount of "magical" money creation can force capitalists to invest or hire more workers.

Remember that private commercial banks create most of the money in circulation every time they issue a loan; they credit your account with new bank deposits out of thin air. This isn't government currency; it's bank credit, and it makes up the vast bulk of money in the economy. This means money creation is not a government monopoly at all; private banks are the main creators of money through lending.

Of course, state capitalism is superior to private capitalism, but this has nothing to do with MMT, and socialism is superior to both.

>>2628841
>You are regurgitating Modern Monetary Theory propaganda, i.e., Chartalism, which is incompatible with Marxist theory
You can have the LTV and the MMT framework. The SNLT (ltv) is a value theory, whilst the MMT is a monetary-institutional framework. In fact, many marxists partake in the MMT because it's not a retarded theory like neoclassical or austrian theories.

>This means money creation is not a government monopoly at all
We're talking about china here anon

>but this has nothing to do with MMT
We're talking about the role of public deficit, so yes, it is quite relevant to the question.


Also this is not scriptures. Understand that Marx may have been wrong on certain things. The SNLT (which isn't even central to his theory) is today very much arguable, and defending it at all cost is imo a waste of time.

>>2628841
Chartalism and MMT are different things. Chartalism argued that money (currency) was created through taxation and tribute (first as consumable commodities, then to metals, then to paper etc.) which is an archeological fact compared to the mainstream nonsense of people switching to gold because of double coincidence of wants. In reality, this was never a problem since the system was basically delayed barter and the constant demands from warlords made specific commodities "money" like Cattle, Barley, Wheat, Silver etc.

>>2628868
SNLT is correct and you have to defend it because austroids and neoliberals want to disconnect production from the rest of the economy. It's almost like the elites know Marx was right but need to convince plebs he was wrong to maintain power. My eyes were opened when I independently from Marx derived SNLT and then read :
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm
And realized he was right.

>>2628841
We are talking about communist China. The potential limitations of MMT such as class interests and political private lobbying do not apply in a society that has already achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>2628868
You can find ample empirical evidence for what I'm writing by reading Michael Roberts' articles, which also include other heterodox economists. Furthermore, those who use MMT theories are opportunists seeking to co-opt the masses for class conciliation; therefore, they will be punished as enemies along with Keynesians and neoclassical economists.

Starting with Shaikh and continuing with Cockshott & Cottrell, multiple studies using input e output tables show high correlations between labour values (measured in socially necessary labour time) and market prices / prices of production. These results hold across countries, time periods, and datasets. The point isn’t that prices equal values one-to-one, but that labour-time is the dominant explanatory factor once competition, equalisation of profit rates, etc. are accounted for.

Michael Roberts summarizes and defends this literature explicitly in “Marx’s Law of Value: A Debate Between David Harvey and Michael Roberts” (2018), where he directly cites this empirical work and explains why correlation, at the aggregate level, is exactly what Marx’s theory predicts.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/marxs-law-of-value-a-debate-between-david-harvey-and-michael-roberts/

The law of value isn’t just about prices; it governs profitability, accumulation, and crises. Roberts has spent years compiling empirical evidence showing long-term trends in the rate of profit that align with Marx’s predictions. His recent post “Marx’s law of profitability – yet more evidence” (2024) reviews new empirical work distinguishing productive from unproductive sectors and again finds results consistent with Marxian value theory.

This is crucial: mainstream theories struggle to explain long-term profitability trends without ad hoc assumptions, while value theory predicts them structurally.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/01/23/marxs-law-of-profitability-yet-more-evidence/

Roberts’s presentation “The Labour Theory of Value: The Evidence” pulls together decades of empirical studies, price e value correlations, profit-rate measurements, and input e output analyses, showing that the law of value isn’t a metaphysical claim but a theory with observable regularities.

https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hm-london-november-2017.pptx

Contemporary capitalism, global trade, and value transfer
In Capitalism in the 21st Century: Through the Prism of Value (Roberts & Carchedi), Marx’s value theory is applied empirically to modern capitalism: global value transfers, imperialism, productivity differentials, financialisation, and ecological breakdown. These aren’t abstract exercises — they use real data to show how value created by labour is redistributed internationally.

https://arxiujosepserradell.cat/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Capitalism_in_the_21st_Century_Through_the_Prism_of_Value_Guglielmo.pdf

Roberts’s more recent post “The Frontiers of Value” extends this discussion, emphasizing empirical work on value transfers, international trade, and the continuing relevance of labour-time as the substance of value, even in highly financialised and globalised capitalism.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2025/10/03/the-frontiers-of-value/

>>2628841
Completely spastic post, on par with Smith anon.

>>2629897
I am taking precautions against the infiltration of MMT into socialist circles and the damage this could cause by bringing confusion and possible co-optation. I am not against the use of state capitalism as long as it is a weapon of class struggle to bankrupt the capitalists so that the economy can be nationalized and socialized.

>>2625179
britbong brainrot i forgot about this slop

>>2628841
no one here said money creates value. the claim was that issuing new credit money doesn't inherently lower the exchange value of the currency relative to all other commodities (inflation).

>>2628688
>Seems based. From what I've read, it's essentially delegating private enterprise's roles to public ones, aswell as highly redistributive policies alongside maoist culture & tightening security. It seems a lot like Singaporean model, minus the maoist cultural aspect, where the city essentially owns housing, transit, infrastructure etc but allows for unregulated markets where it doesn't impact their citizens.
Alright cool.

>Deficit spending isn't an issue as long as your economy can produce more goods than their is money in circulation. In MMT, inflation occurs when aggregate spending (especially by the government) exceeds the economy’s productive capacity. So, as long as you have productive structures yielding good results, deficits (& inflation really) aren't a big problem.
I find MMT _very_ confusing. To my understanding more money in circulation representing the same (or slightly more) labor time would result in inflation. The Philips curve and NAIRU (or equivalently the necessity of a surplus army of labor) implies that a little inflation is a good thing. And it's especially good if employment drops like in a recession once again because of the Philips curve. But this is besides the point. Just from a labor perspective (and this is the most important perspective), sticky wages imply that you wouldn't want more inflation than necessary to secure employment.

But even besides this I simply don't know if it was in fact true that the Chongqing model utilized excessive deficit spending or not; I heard there were many attempts to slander the model after the murder trial, and it's hard to find data on other than perhaps the wsj article linked in OP which showed total dept within the whole province going from 100% of GDP to 125% over the five years. I was also curious if there was any influence on Xi from this model - which seemed so beneficial.

(Sorry the OP is so terribly written also, pure brainslop composition.)