>adopts a market economy
>immediately begins to develop
Idk how anyone can still be a stalinist in 2026 when stalinist centrally-planned economies simply dont work and only produce dysfunctional shitholes.
China never left the oriental mode of production
Nprth Korea is doing pretty well. Also the Soviet Union did also do pretty well.
>>2738294>North Korea is doing pretty well.Lmao
>Also the Soviet Union did also do pretty well.It wouldnt have collapsed if this was actually true
>>2738284>damn, who knew massive foreign capital injection to build industry would develop the country?retard
>>2738300USSR collapse was purely political and strictly from the top, elites betrayed basically
and yes, NK is doing pretty well
retard
>>2738300USSR lasted almost 70 years and it "collapsed" because of internal sabotage, during a time they were already engaging in market reforms. And the post-USSR Russian economy collapsed when they implemented "shock therapy" that led to a massive reduction of quality of life and life expectancy.
>>2738322They think socialism is buying plastic bullshit from walmart and target
>>2738327His legacy is walmart and israel
>>2738344Okay but the legacy of the American Civil War was the United States and also Walmart and Israel but are you going to support the Confederacy
>>2738305>USSR collapse was purely political and strictly from the top, elites betrayed basicallyAnother failure of the stalinist system where the elites and leaders of the country are chosen entirely by the already existing elites and are not accountable or beholden to the proleteriat whatsoever.
the USSR under Stalin developed even faster
>turn an agrarian shithole into a world power
>um sweaty they didn't have Pizza Hut??? checkmate
>>2738376The problem is nobody tried to emulate Stalin at all after him.
This is why you need a dynasty.
The methods have changed. What the USSR did by hand and on paper using clunky linprog algorithms can now be done in minutes by computers running the harmony method. Iterative stock adjustment and price seeking in scarce consumer goods is trivial. The only country even trying this is NK and they're too defeated geopolitically to really matter or provide any kind of good standard of living.
>>2738460stalin should have groomed an heir TBH
china developed because they took advantage of a specific historical circumstance. aka they got lucky
>>2738460crazy how much Kim jong un looks like his grandfather tbh, tho Kim Il Sung was a little bit more handsome, no shade
>>2738284Market Socialism was always the answer the NEP was literally the first economic policy of the USSR. Its just that after WW2 every international communist movement thought they needed to emulate Stalin's economic policies and they all fell into the same trap and ended collapsing when the house of cards fell apart. China and others escaped this by ditching the system (or in North Korea's case being close to someone who did). Cuba today still keeps the old Stalinist model in many areas and people literally can't get homes because of it. It was always a retarded wrong turn and it has cost us alot.
>>2738496If socialism needs to have all the same mechanics of capitalism but slightly tweaked it isn’t worth anyone’s time or sweat or blood
>>2738498Genuinely wtf is so bad about people buying and exchanging goods and services?
>>2738502Kills the community of pleasures and pains.
Also, when you do a cult of personality around a leader, it is best to form a dynasty to preserve the cult of personality and the community of pleasures and pains derived from it–for corporatist endeavors.
>>2738502That’s the status quo and the only thing it can produce is the current status quo, if you don’t like the status quo it makes no sense to advocate for markets and money
>>2738509That doesnt answer the question what exactly is inherently bad about exchanging goods and services?
>>2738511It makes the current, very bad, extinction causing status quo you moron
>>2738519Money implies scarcity which hasn’t existed in 150 years
>>2738522No it doesnt money is merely the medium by which we exchange goods.
It exists because its simply more convenient than having to barter goods directly.
>>2738527The fact that goods even need to be exchanged at all is where the vast majority of human misery originates, someone having and someone else not having
>>2738527That’s also not true because money makes money by itself with tricks like interest and speculation
>>2738532>money by itself with tricks like interest and speculationI fail to see how that matters?
>>2738533That’s how the vast majority of wealth is created, not by productive industry
>>2738531Yeah well your fantasy land doesnt and will never exist.
>>2738537And again how does that make money not the medium that we exchange goods with?
>>2738538It can easily exist, we have the resources and the machinery to do so, what we don’t have is the political will
>>2738539It’s how you exchange commodities but it’s also a commodity onto itself
>>2738540Human nature doesnt work that way
>>2738543It needs to fucking go, the vast majority of crimes are either motivated by money, or facilitated via money
>>2738544Human nature is extremely pliable, straight people will have gay sex in prison because they don’t have access to women, famers left thousand year legacies to get jobs in cities, all you need to change someone’s nature is to hold a gun to their head and the heads of people they love and they’ll do what you demand
>>2738546People robbed each other before the existance of money
Getting rid of it wont change anything
>>2738551That was because things were actually scarce and we didn’t have machinery to turn everything into anything, we have that now, anarchy of production and money are anachronisms we choose to live with because it strokes our egos and we deliberately suppress our imaginations
>>2738550Whos going to hold the gun?
>>2738567If he was actually healthy he wouldn’t be near where people would stab him, it’s his fault for not getting out of the way
More like a healthy person wouldnt have shot himself in the foot.
>>2738527The idea that early humans started out bartering is contradicted by basically all modern anthropology. Instead, communities exchanged goods according to need need, and as a form of gift or social favor to be indeterminately reciprocated as apart of an ongoing relationship. Go read Debt by David Graeber.
Obviously that kind of system of exchange is not really scalable, but what seems highly plausible through technology to craft a democratic system to coordinate production and distribution according to social need rather than market forces. The last time this was attempted was Cybersyn, but sadly Allende was ousted by a CIA-backed neoliberal military dictatorship. Other more primitave democratic and decentralized systems of distribution have been tried, but IMO technology will be necessary for any kind of transition away from the dominance imposed on us by market logic.
>>2738537In the US and imperial core, there has been in increase in growth driven by speculation but this it's pretty ridiculous to claim that productivity hasn't increased over time with globalization and the transition to our post-industrial information age.
>>2738578>Go read [] David Graeber<In fact, “communism” is not some magical utopia, and neither does it have anything to do with ownership of the means of production. It is something that exists right now — that exists, to some degree, in any human society, although there has never been one in which everything has been organized in that way, and it would be difficult to imagine how there could be. All of us act like communists a good deal of the time…. “Communist society”… could never exist. But all social systems, even social systems like capitalism, have been built on top of a bedrock of actually-existing communism.No I don't think I will
>>2738284All the independent infrastructure that was used in China's state capitalism when capitalist relations were restored was created during the Maoist period, so you are wrong. This can only be done with mass expropriation and socialization of the economy. By restoring capitalist relations, China took advantage of state capitalism to pursue profit interests, acquiring technology and using industries domestically, while other countries deindustrialized with neoliberalism and the financialization of their economies.
The so-called "Stalinist" economies are correct and should be forcibly implemented in all countries, with violence being used against all who resist.
>>2738488>china developed because they took advantage of a specific historical circumstance.is there another way to develop?
>>2738284>>adopts a market economy>>immediately begins to developfundamental attribution error. they developed because they industrialized. the adoption of a market economy was just to trick the burgers into outsourcing all manufacturing jobs to them. it worked. one step backwards two steps forward
>>2738600What's your issue with that quote?
>>2738666he disagrees, and if a book has a paragraph or a chapter you disagree with, you should not read it.
>>2738660To have an independent national industry, you can carry out a socialist revolution by carrying out mass expropriations, abolishing private property and production for profit, and planning the economy. All the industries and dams built in China that were used in the capitalist restoration came from the Maoist period. Furthermore, the development of a sovereign national economy, as demonstrated in all revolutions that socialized the economy, provides guaranteed employment for the population, education at all levels, independent industries, a guaranteed public health system, public transportation, leisure, community, food sovereignty, etc. This is already enough for workers, rather than worrying about production for profit by selling goods. Only in this way can workers of all nationalities develop equally, industrializing together, acting rationally together without exploiting each other because they don't follow the logic of profit. Therefore, what can be replicated in all countries to develop is a socialist revolution to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will socialize the economy.
>>2738483he was but then he got assassinated and his stupid chud protege suslov was too socially awkward to get his hands dirty
>>2738666It reduces communism to a vibe and/or personal characteristic and claims communist society could never exist.
I don't have particular interest in reading anticommunists
>>2738670I always look up what people have to say about communism to decide if I will take them seriously or not. Graeber did not pass the check, sorry bro
I don't think a single one of you motherfuckers has read Marx or knows anything about the history of China, but the reason why China embraced a market economy is because it's in line with a pretty basic understanding of dialectical materialism as well as Mao's observation that you must apply the principles of Marxism to the unique conditions of a particular country at its stage of development. in the case of China, which was one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries on earth, its unique conditions were essentially a pre-capitalist society that needed to pass through that stage of developing its productive forces in order to able to then transition to socialism, and Deng's and Chen Yun's theories were essentially to do this in a way that both controlled the excessive, destructive tendencies of capital and also could steer the economy in strategic directions, letting the state control certain areas of the economy that don't need to be developed while still allowing for the market to exist and have a limited degree of freedom.
the Chinese system is essentially the wuwei counterpart to the Soviet model, which is very typically western in its hyper-rationalist fixation on total control, and if you get into Chinese philosophy in general there's an argument to be made that Daoists contemplated for thousands of years that wuwei is superior to rationalism because yin is more primary than yang. but either way, it's still questionable to what extent the Chinese system is applicable to the rest of the world and it would be a gross misinterpretation of Mao & Deng's theories to try to universalize it. I still think it's pretty self-evident by China's meteoric rise that their interpretations of Marx are simply more correct and practically useful than western Marxism and that more western communists should be reading Mao, Deng, Chen Yun and engaging with Chinese culture and philosophy since we're soon going to find the situation has been reversed and it's the west that is the underdeveloped part of the world. in fact I'd argue the US is already in that position but no one realizes it yet because we measure the wealth of a country in terms of fictitious, speculative finance capital that is basically a form of propaganda.
>>2738684>you can carry out a socialist revolutionto do this you have to take advantage of a specific historical circumstance
>>2738693It can both be true that when Marx described communism that he was referring to a society where coordination, production, and distribution is socialized after proletarian revolution. That's not what Graeber is talking about here, he is an anthropologist and looking at this from a bottom-up rather than top-down perspective. I take it to mean he is talking about the kinds of behaviors we all participate in that facilitate communistic social relations. While clearly limited by our class system, most of us participate in mutual aid (informally or otherwise) that help us in ways that our state-run social safety net does not.
>>2738745>when Marx described communism that he was referring to a society where coordination, production, and distribution is socialized after proletarian revolutionYes, as well as the process that actualizes that society
>That's not what Graeber is talking about hereI know, that's why I don't care to read him
>he is an anthropologist He is a liberal
>looking at this from a bottom-up rather than top-down perspectiveFalse dichotomy
>I take it to mean he is talking about the kinds of behaviors we all participate in that facilitate communistic social relationsThat would be actions that facilitate proletarian revolution, that is not what he's talking about. He's talking about sharing is caring or some shit
>While clearly limited by our class system, most of us participate in mutual aid (informally or otherwise) that help us in ways that our state-run social safety net does not.That's fine, but that can describe a bunch of unrelated nonsense like church funded charity drives. Just don't call it communism
>>2738693>It reduces communism to a vibe and/or personal characteristicthis part of the quote:
>>2738600>It is something that exists right now — that exists, to some degree, in any human societyis compatible with Marx when he defines communism as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, communism in this sense is nothing but proletarian organization and association and it that sense its already an actual reality and forms of it have indeed existed always
the fact that you call him anti-communist for this its hilarious
>>2738752>is compatible with Marx when he defines communism as the real movementIf you ignore everything else sure
>communism in this sense is nothing but proletarian organization and association That is not what he's talking about
>the fact that you call him anti-communist for this its hilariousThank you, I try
>>2738744You prepare the masses by organizing the workers and building forces with the communist movement through the formation of dual power, where, with the intensification of the class struggle, you will be preparing the workers so that, in the environment of a revolutionary situation, the communist revolution can take place. If there is no preparation, there will be no revolution when the crises of the bourgeois state lead to a revolutionary situation. This type of historical circumstance is much more replicable than present-day China, which, by using state capitalism after the restoration of capitalist relations, uses what was created during the Maoist period and takes advantage of the fact that other countries were financializing themselves with neoliberalism, which was deindustrializing these countries, so that China could become a global manufacturing center while acquiring and developing its own national technology to pursue profit by selling goods on the market, taking advantage of the interests of capitalists worldwide, something that other capitalist countries avoided or considered taboo for ideological reasons. The conclusion is that state capitalism is superior to private capitalism, and for any country to industrialize with an independent sovereign economy, a socialist revolution will be necessary to socialize the economy if you don't want to be a deindustrialized neocolony controlled by finance capital or dependent on other countries and other peoples becoming neocolonies for finance capital.
Unique IPs: 27