/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2631258
This is Keynesianism or (neo)developmentalism. It's not possible under vanilla capitalism. It relies on helicopter money or state directed production. The former is no longer experimented with generally, and the latter is done mainly by socialist governments.

There are two tendencies in capitalism: one is for the direct rule of the wealthy elites via buying influence and so on. The second is for a vanguard of the capitalists' interests to substitute themselves for the direct rule of capitalists, and this requires constraining the actions of individual capitals, who, along with shared class interests, all have antagonistic competitive interests that when acted on lead to the undermining of their ability to rule. This capitalist vanguard can choose to redistribute surplus in various ways that it deems necessary for ensuring the stability of the rule of capitalism. This can be state directed investment or redistribution to the working class in order to seed demand. But the most popular current method is to divide the working class into various dichotomous groups, and give one group material advantages while super-exploiting the other. This lets them make a pact with a section of the working class and recruit enforcers from this bourgeois-privileged sub-class.

The main proponents today of what you describe are socialist states, since the capitalists have decided they don't need to pay us all off and they'd rather us brutally oppress each other.

>>2631584
this guy in a nutshell

>>2631584
>>2631587
I think this is a better response than my OP warranted.

At an national level then this is exactly what is done in developing countries. Capitalists are made subservient to the will of capital as determined by the development objectives of the state. However, weren't all the Asian Tigers export-orientated growth, including Korea Inc. To my knowledge only early China, and the CCCP were industrialized in modern times without lots of direct foreign investment.

>>2631258
Can't be done under capitalism.
https://archive.is/LKS8S

Deindustrialization is a consequence of declining profit rates forcing capitalists to move to areas where labor is cheaper and modern factories are easy to set up. The Dengist path of using state 'socialism' to prepare a nation for capitalism can work, but even so each wave of industrial growth has been weaker than the one before it. Modern factories are just so insanely capital intensive and productive that they don't have the same effect on a society that industrialization had 100 years ago.

no,and even the "developping economies" are doomed to become purely reaaource extractor as no single business would be able to compete with chinese products even there

>>2633408
Pretty much. Good luck expanding manufacturing in African countries when China can just flood your market

>>2632470
>However, weren't all the Asian Tigers export-orientated growth, including Korea Inc. To my knowledge only early China, and the CCCP were industrialized in modern times without lots of direct foreign investment.
this is pretty much true.

>>2631258

Industrialization occurs in historical waves, because only specific conditions and moments in the industrial cycle promote large scale industrial development of underdeveloped nations. Because the newer industry is more advanced than the old one, the older industrial nations are left in the dust. So was the case with British and French capital being left behind by German and American capital, and now Chinese capital.

The rise of China is a significant example, because the Volker shock of 1981-83 made financial capital so much more profitable than industrial capital that the only way out to restore the rate of profit of enterprise was to de-industrialize the socdem west to super-exploit cheap Chinese labor. The differential in profit was so great that the west basically just gave up its entire industry within a generation.

The developmentalism mentioned by another anon is the way to create all necessary non-systemic conditions for industrialization. Chief among these conditions though, never to be mentioned by bourgeois economists, is the goodwill of the industrialized nations in allowing the necessary import of advanced capital goods and technical expertise to nativize industrial development. This is why Occupied Korea was able to industrialize, because it was beneficial for cold war era policy to have an industrialized ally in the pacific; and it's also why Korea won't ever industrialize as long as it is surrounded by hostile capitalist nations.

So clearly development is possible if it's in the interests of either empire or capital, but even if we lived in the world of heckin wholesome chungus industrial powers willing to help out underdeveloped nations, convergence theory remains a complete myth, simply because the market can never be large enough for all boats to rise forever. Eventually crisis will hit, credit will disappear, demand will collapse, Keynesian policies will only cause stagflation, and it's back to imperial rivalry and autarky. It happened in the 30's, it's happening today.

In the long run, either the imperial powers maintain the rest of the world underdeveloped, or they lose their competitive advantage and capacity for domination. This sorry state of affairs can only be truly overcome through socialist revolution

>>2633709

China does support African industrialization, via infrastructure development, tech sharing and education, not forcing free trade policies on them, and allowing African products tariff free into Chinese markets. Western nations do literally the opposite of all of this, and then they surprise pikachu face when Africans prefer China

>>2631258
You can have industry but not the jobs as everything will be fully automated.

>>2633304
>https://archive.is/LKS8S
This was a good read, I read nearly all of it.

Among my main takeaways follow:
- The Volcker shock (perhaps) deindustrialized the US, and wiped out the commodity based industrialization of the developing world in one swoop.
- (Obvious to me) Industrialization is the means to become a developed country.
- It is no longer reasonable to expect capitalism to industrialize developing nations.
- The developing world is filled with masses of underemployed youths.
- The developmental state can't be dominated by rentiers because the movement to higher value-added industries means a transition away from the investments of the rentiers.
- Early financialization such as free-floating currencies (1997 Asian Financial Crisis in particular), removal of capital controls, and creation of debt markets further impoverish.

In short anything close to neoliberalism, and perhaps even democracy if we're to see this as an indirect control by rentiers endangers developing countries ability to develop.

I'm really not certain about the Volcker shock or the language surrounding malthusianism.

>>2631584
>>2633304
Exactly why the Soviet Union and China should be considered capitalist revolutions, though ideologically dressed in red flags and communism.
The vanguard essentially bootstrapped and accelerated the expansion and development of productive forces, to make capitalist exploitation the standard and dominant mode of production, in what were predominantly backwards rural/semi-feudal economies. The party plays its part before fading and transitioning the state into a generic organ of capitalist class power.

I'm not denying that these backwards societies needed the development of productive power for communism to be possible, but don't mistake this for actual communism. (Sorry MLs you fell for it)

>>2637033
Thats literally what Marx wrote and what most MLs already understand lmao

>>2637043
Sure, Marx understood the necessity of capitalist development in backward societies.
The question then is, why Western communists still advocate a strategy whose historical function was precisely to develop capitalism, not abolish it. What exactly is its role in societies where the development of productive forces has already been completed?