Everything belongs to the workers
1mon 1d ago by lemmy.ml/u/yogthos in socialism@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml
Careful about stuff like this. The word "oligarch" always presents some liberal conditions by distancing the fundamental issue of private property from attention. Middle-class people are integral to this system because they have a vested material interest in maintaining property as well as the violence necessary for it to exist; they aren't "oligarchs" any more than the thousands of multi-millionaires are.
It is also contradictory to socialism to attribute systemic inequities exclusively to the actions of select individuals, not a system of power organized around property.
Edit: I'm seriously disappointed by the amount of uneducated mansplaining going on here, I won't be responding to any more comments from this community.
In general, I'd argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you're in the former category then you're a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you're in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.
Greetings, Comrade!
I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not "oligarchs," but the bourgeoisie; not "workers," but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.
Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.
The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through "surplus value." Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.
Greetings, and agreed on all points.
I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.
That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says... really surprises me.
When I read his first post, I didn't even understand which camp he belonged to... because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!
What you'll find is that understanding of socialism in the west is largely shaped by the CIA, meaning that there is no actual understanding.
I'm talking about that guy up above who got offended and doesn't want to reply.
oh you can check the modlog, lemmy is pretty transparent about it unlike reddit https://lemmy.ml/modlog/14681?page=1&actionType=All&userId=23129142
Thanks, Comrade—I'll check it out!
Once I get a little more settled in here and get to know the locals better, we can pick up our fascinating conversation... )))
indeed, you'll also notice that https://lemmy.ml/c/ukrainehas very different vibe from reddit here
Yes, I'll take a look.
Yes, I see that the topic of Ukraine isn't very popular here—for some reason. Do you want us to move over there?
yeah can chat there
Hi, Comrade!
I can't seem to figure out how to use the engine. I can't find the private messages. I'll post it here: our Chinese friend from Reddit has registered here. Can we create our own thread here so we can communicate with him?
Thanks!
Ah no worries, I made a community and a thread, tagged you both in it.
Yes, I read it—Rule Number Two: Show respect, especially when you’re in the wrong.
To be honest, I didn't see anything particularly outrageous in there. I’ve been called a Nazi on Reddit... and they didn't bat an eye.
And this is actually the first time that my opponent got removed rather than me; I’m extremely surprised.
By the way, I recently stumbled across a YouTube video—check it out. It features Yusupov—the guy who killed Rasputin. I had no idea he’d acted in films.
a very different culture here from reddit, and didn't know that either about Yusupov
I also lost your link to the section on Ukraine. I'll write it here.
Regarding our conversation at the beginning of spring about what's happening.
My vision of the situation on the front is coming true so far. We were waiting for the green stuff to appear. It has, but nothing has changed at all. Russia is attacking in the Donetsk and Kharkiv regions, with minimal success, while Ukraine is attacking westward, in the Zaporizhzhia direction, and is also advancing. Russia failed to achieve a strategic initiative during the spring offensive. But the most important thing, as I mentioned earlier, is the strikes deep into Russia, which are becoming more painful with each passing month. I get the impression that Ukraine now has parity in drones. Europe is increasing drone production on its own territory. Ukraine has begun using drones with artificial intelligence. According to local residents, something similar is happening in Energodar now. Drones continue to displace traditional weapons with each passing month; very soon they will no longer be needed. War is becoming much cheaper, which is very beneficial for Ukraine. I haven't seen Zelenskyy so confident in a long time. All that's left is to wait for your forecasts by mid-summer.
Did you see a recent interview with Karaganov where he basically says that the west does not understand what nuclear deterrence is, and that his view is that Russia will eventually end up striking a NATO country, first conventionally, and then if the message doesn't get through then using a limited nuclear strike as a demonstration. It seems that's where we're headed at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gd5jdl36cg
Incidentally, Mearsheimer agrees with Karaganov and also thinks that Russia has to reestablish nuclear deterrence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx7osj5gCmo
Did you see a recent interview with Karaganov where he basically says that the west does not understand what nuclear deterrence is, and that his view is that Russia will eventually end up striking a NATO country, first conventionally, and then if the message doesn’t get through then using a limited nuclear strike as a demonstration. It seems that’s where we’re headed at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gd5jdl36cg
I actually got banned from Reddit for the second time for saying exactly this while replying to you. The only difference was that I was talking about a non-nuclear strike. And I added that Russia needed to carry this out as quickly as possible—otherwise, things would only get worse down the road.
As you can see for yourself, time has passed, and a simple strike is no longer enough to resolve the situation.
Karaganov is close to Putin; when he speaks, it isn't just an interview—it is a direct message to the West, delivered through Western influencers, intended specifically for people like you to see.
This is an information game, playing out against the backdrop of Russia recently beginning to test captured Western weaponry. The underlying premise is that the West will eventually come to its senses, because things have already gone much too far. Those drone incursions deep into Russian territory pose a genuine threat to Russia—a real threat, regardless of what is happening on the front lines. Ukraine is already capable of launching a thousand drones a day... and that number is only going to rise.
We'll have to see what happens in the next three month when the real energy shortages hit https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/oil-market-clock-is-ticking-supply-crunch-looms-2026-05-21/
I still think this will be the big deciding factor. Europe can talk a big talk, but people have to eat. As Lenin put it, every society is three meals away from chaos. You saw how even Kid Starver tried to roll back sanctions on Russian energy, that tells you all you need to know about how bad the situation is.
Damn it—I was in the middle of writing you a really long reply when the power went out and my computer shut down. I switched over to my backup power supply, but drafts don't save on this setup... Argh.
Let's talk tomorrow, Comrade! I'll say just one thing: I first found out about the massive shelling from the news this morning. It was relatively quiet on our end last night.
I also wanted to discuss the JPMorgan forecast with you, as well as the potential scenarios for how the war in Ukraine might end.
https://logos-pres.md/en/news/jpmorgan-chase-analysts-predict-a-finnish-scenario-for-ukraine/
Oh that sucks about the power, and I saw their report. We'll have to chat more about it, but reads like copium to me. I do think it's an indication that they see the gig is up now. Another sign is that Europe is now scrambling to find a negotiator, definitely not a thing they'd be doing if they genuinely thought they were winning.
We’ll have to chat more about it, but reads like copium to me.
This reveals the plans Europe is currently formulating.
It shows the terms they are willing to accept. A new, optimal scenario for the end of the war has emerged.
50% — 3. The Base Scenario: "Finlandization" Prior to NATO Membership (The New Scenario)
Under this scenario, Ukraine cedes a portion of its territory but retains its sovereignty and strategic orientation. It rebuilds its military, invests in its industrial base, and gradually integrates into Europe—both economically and politically. Formal NATO membership remains out of reach in the near term, and Kyiv may be compelled to exercise a certain degree of strategic restraint so as not to provoke Moscow. However, over time, Ukraine builds up its own deterrence capabilities and deepens its Western alignment—ultimately joining the EU and, potentially, NATO in the long run.
Provided that the European economy does not collapse this year, I view this scenario as plausible. However, this scenario fails to account for the domestic political climate within Ukraine, as well as the potential for internal social conflict. One must consider the system itself—founded on corruption and graft—along with the hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning from the front, and the staggering quantity of weaponry that will inevitably remain in private hands. Once the war concludes—and assuming, as I foresee, that the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCCs) are disbanded—I believe a new Maidan uprising and a new civil war will ensue. Currently, Budanov is making bold, high-profile statements; yet, he remains largely in the shadows, avoiding any rash moves that might tarnish his reputation in the slightest. I am convinced that the West is actively grooming him to become the next President of Ukraine—specifically to fit the scenario outlined above.
Incidentally, the "Georgian Scenario"—to which J.P. Morgan assigns a 30% probability—is also a possibility; however, this would likely only occur if Europe proves unable to cope with the situation or if a major military collapse takes place on the front lines.
The Georgian Scenario. In the absence of both foreign troops and firm security guarantees, Ukraine will experience chronic instability, stunted growth and recovery, a gradual fading of foreign support, and the effective derailment of Western integration—specifically, membership in the EU and NATO. Over time, Kyiv could drift back into Russia’s orbit—politically, economically, and strategically—without a formal capitulation.
The remaining scenarios strike me as unlikely. The "Georgian scenario" is the one that best suits Russia and, in my view, is the most realistic.
I can't see how going back to the status quo after 4 years of war would be possible politically in Russia. I expect that any scenario where the war ends will result in Ukraine having a compliant regime and forced neutrality. It will not be allowed to join NATO or EU at this point, and there will be a big cap on the size of the army. So, I think the Georgian scenario is the most likely one as well.
I can’t see how going back to the status quo after 4 years of war would be possible politically in Russia.
The Kill Zone—it is constantly expanding. This has fundamentally altered the nature of warfare. Victory now belongs to whoever exercises superior control over the Kill Zone. In this context, defense is far easier, as infantry is rendered virtually obsolete.
To seize the strategic initiative, one must establish absolute dominance within the Kill Zone.
We are currently engaged in a war of technology—not a war of men or tanks. You have likely heard about the recent visit from an American entrepreneur who owns a company contracted by the Pentagon to develop and manufacture AI technologies for the defense industry. The Pentagon’s cutting-edge innovations are currently being field-tested in Ukraine. Russia is finding it difficult to keep pace.
And it is precisely this factor that will play the decisive role in the upcoming summer campaign.
I think we'll have to wait and see here. American technology has proven itself to be hype many times in the past, and I wouldn't jump to conclusions here.
The situation here is somewhat more serious.
This company has secured a contract from the Pentagon to manufacture American-made Shahed-style drones equipped with AI. New models are being tested in Ukraine under combat conditions—something we are witnessing right now.
Currently, Russia and the U.S. are essentially competing in technology. I believe that the U.S. holds the advantage in the use of AI.
Perhaps China, too, might want to test something of its own... ))
However, China has no desire to escalate tensions with the U.S., so it is highly unlikely to do so.
Right now, everyone is anticipating strikes on Kyiv. If this turns out to be yet another "final Chinese warning" from Russia, it will start looking a lot like Trump's style. The Russians need to take action—but at this moment, I simply cannot imagine what that action could be that would actually take everyone by surprise. Putin currently finds himself in a difficult situation. The Europeans are becoming increasingly brazen; they have refused to evacuate their embassies from Kyiv, thereby demonstrating that they have absolutely no fear of Putin.
Ukraine's strategy is clear, and they have staked everything on it: to destabilize Russia internally as much as possible—and as intensely as possible—before the Russian elections this autumn. Their objective is to hold the front lines against any major breakthroughs, while simultaneously inflicting maximum damage through strikes deep inside Russian territory.
What countermeasures Russia will be able to deploy against this—and whether it will be adequately prepared to do so—remains to be seen.
I honestly don't think China cares what US thinks because they have Americans by the balls. The US economy cannot function without Chinese exports. Period. Did you see how Trump was behaving in China? That tells you everything. Not only will China be testing their AI for drones in Ukraine, they will also continue to cut off rare earths supply to the US which is what you need to make components for these drones.
And I expect there will be strikes coming. I also don't understand Ukraine's strategy. It's important to remember that Putin is a moderate, and if he lost then it would almost certainly be somebody much more hard line, and then gloves will come off fully.
And I expect there will be strikes coming.
We talked a long time ago about bridges across the Dnieper. Something like this should probably exist.
I would still argue that the fact that Russia is not destroying the bridges is a clear indication that they're expecting to keep moving further west.
Indeed, Russia does not seek escalation—a fact evident in the absence of retaliatory strikes against Kyiv for the past eight days.
Ukraine’s drone strategy has recently come to light. Ukraine lacks secure airfields near the border from which to launch drones deep into Russian territory. Consequently, they have adopted Iranian tactics: installing a three-drone launch system onto standard civilian semi-trucks. The truck rapidly moves into position, the crew deploys, and the drones are launched. The problem is that launching 200 drones requires 70 trucks—a quantity that is extremely difficult to conceal. The Russians are now actively hunting down these trucks. It is possible that this campaign has already yielded results. To put it roughly: the day before yesterday saw 200 drones launched; yesterday, 15; and today, 70. Significantly, today—for the first time in a long while—not a single video surfaced showing a target being struck.
Russia must have finally found the key to countering this threat; otherwise, the situation would have continued to deteriorate. We shall see, as events unfold, whether this proves to be true.
amusingly also using trucks as mobile platforms
Such vehicles are highly conspicuous; the AFU uses civilian vehicles to maneuver.
Look—these are new AFU drones manufactured in Europe; judging by the build quality, these weren't cobbled together by amateurs in a garage.
probably Europeans buying from the US and reselling https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/use-of-lucas-drones-in-iran-puts-focus-on-affordable-fast-moving-acquisition/
Oh, I forgot to mention: a friend of mine has a son living in Kyiv, and the latest nighttime raid made a huge impression on him—even more so than his very first night in the city.
Now, on top of that, there’s been a strike on St. Petersburg... It’s terrifying to think what might happen next.
It seems to me that civilians here are going to suffer far more now. These new strikes will impact the civilian population much more heavily.
It gets pretty loud here at night, too... and during the day. Every now and then, through my open window, I hear the buzzing of drones in the distance—and the sound of fire being directed at them.
Unfortunately, I also expect there's going to be a lot more impact on civilians now. Also, with the talk of Budanov replacing Syrskyi it seems like the plan is to transition to doing terrorism instead of conventional warfare. Budanov has no experience commanding anything, but he specializes in special forces and working behind enemy lines. So, if he is put in charge it's clear what the focus is going to be going forward. Also notable is that it appears to be American decision. Blumenthal came to talk to Zelensky, and seems like this came as a directive from the US.
Unfortunately, I also expect there’s going to be a lot more impact on civilians now.
Yes, this is definitely a new round of escalation.
I just recently mentioned this "sweet couple"—read what they're up to. Their rhetoric also tells you how serious this really is.
Look at them... two Orthodox elders, preparing to perform a mass ritual sacrifice.
https://charter97.org/ru/news/2026/6/3/686479/
Yes, Trump also had a plan on the table to nuke Iran, but he didn't go through with it. But Russia's situation is more complicated; after defeat, Russia might not exist.
I'm looking at how this Malofeev got rich. It turns out he's doing the same thing my brother-in-law does in M&A.
My God, how awful, it's not hard to imagine what's going on in that idiot's head.
He's absolutely certain that God helped him earn billions. That's 100%! Medieval obscurantism!! He's convinced he's chosen by God.
Also, with the talk of Budanov replacing Syrskyi
In the army, they call Syrsky General 200. A friend of mine came to see me recently; someone he knew had been busified and ended up in the "Skelya" unit. He told him some horrific stories. The core of this unit is made up of former prisoners. There's a culture of abuse there. The criminals abuse the busified. That guy told me they're sending them to slaughter. There was a case where they sent 30 people who had been busified, told them to check something and come back... It's very simple. The column was torn to pieces in 15 minutes. Only one man remained, who hid among the corpses for 24 hours to avoid being finished off. Only one man survived... Syrsky personally oversees this "Skelya."
Budanov has no experience commanding anything, but he specializes in special forces and working behind enemy lines.
Yes, the Ukrainian Armed Forces' tactics have changed recently. The emphasis is solely on deep strikes and stagnation at the front.
For now, Ukraine's offensive in the Zaporizhzhia sector has stalled, while the Russians are advancing very slowly, as before.
But the situation at the front has somehow faded into the background.
Blumenthal came to talk to Zelensky, and seems like this came as a directive from the US.
You've seen that the Americans have again started blaming Putin for his reluctance to make peace. Also, the 400 million package that was previously allocated to Ukraine and frozen is now being transferred to Ukraine from the US.
We've also seen the US change its position. I think this is related to Trump's visit to China.
It's always concerning when you get religious nuts close to the levers of power.
And yeah, the whole busification thing is basically to create single use units. They basically get thrown at the artillery in attempts to take some ground, and they're not expected to survive. I've always been amazed how freely the regime wastes people given the demographics problems.
I told you trip to China didn't go well. They also just published this https://www.state.gov/pax-silica
But, I can't overstate just how fucked Americans are here. China produces both rare earths and silica needed to make chips. They have a monopoly and cannot be replaced. So, there's no trick Americans can pull out of their hat here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKUkgjNaMDE
Hello, Comrade!
It was very loud last night. The drones were buzzing for a very long time.
The entire ring road is blocked off with nets; there's a battle for the logistics arteries. The Ukrainians, just like before, are delivering painful blows every night into Crimea and deeper into Russia. You've probably heard that Crimea is currently experiencing serious fuel shortages. The resort season is being disrupted. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians are methodically destroying gas stations on key roads.
Regarding the front line, the Russians broke through at Kostantynivka. The Ukrainians were planning to advance on Kursk or Bryansk again to divert attention from key areas of the front, like last time. They use this tactic when they start having problems at the front.
This breakthrough to Kostantynivka has probably thwarted their plans, because they'll have to redeploy reserves to Kostantynivka.
It feels like the Russians have somehow managed to eliminate the Ukrainians' drone parity. I could be wrong, of course, but we'll see. Kostiantynivka was taken very quickly. This city, if I'm not mistaken, is larger than Pokrovsk. We'll see if the Ukrainian Armed Forces can stabilize the front in this direction.
But still, this doesn't mean anything yet. You've probably heard that Abramovich came to Kyiv. This suggests that Putin isn't interested in continuing the war. And that says a lot. Abramovich is Putin's behind-the-scenes liaison with the West. Because Abramovich lives in London and maintains good relations with everyone. Abramovich was also present at the negotiations in Istanbul. His old business partner, Arakhamia, was also present in Istanbul, but on behalf of Ukraine.
Trump has completely disappeared into oblivion. No one listens to him anymore, neither Europe nor Zelensky. Now they're playing their own game, judging by Zelensky's last visit to Britain, where they looked very pleased, judging by their faces. Zelensky looks more cheerful and upbeat than ever. And Trump's days, in my opinion, are numbered. He won't pull through.
Putin actually addressed that in SPIEF, and he rejected any proposals. It could be Abramovich went there to give an ultimatum. It's very clear to me that Russia isn't going to compromise and isn't looking to end the war right now. I think we might be approaching the end game. The US is fucked in Iran, the war just restarted again, and the US economy is on the brink because they're running out of the reserve and won't be able to stabilize gas prices for long now. Europe is collapsing as well, and nobody in the west cares about Ukraine at this point. It's barely even mentioned in the news here now. It's over.
Putin actually addressed that in SPIEF, and he rejected any proposals.
Zelenskyy wrote a letter to Putin following a meeting with Abramovich. Putin responded to that letter with a refusal—one that was rude and boorish, accompanied by blackmail and threats. It was impossible to respond to that letter in any other way.
The fact is that during his visit to Kyiv, Abramovich met with Arakhamia—whom I mentioned earlier; Arakhamia is a business partner of Abramovich. Abramovich arranged a private conversation between Putin and Arakhamia. Mind you, not with Zelenskyy, but with Arakhamia! No one knows what they discussed, but Zelenskyy soon found out about it; it was only after learning this that he wrote an open letter to Putin—effectively burning all bridges. Arakhamia is the head of "Servant of the People," Zelenskyy's party.
On one hand, we are witnessing a certain internal political rift in Ukraine, which could eventually lead to an escalation of the domestic power struggle. On the other hand, the situation is not quite so simple; the fact that Putin deigned to speak with a secondary figure reflects poorly on him. Peace benefits figures like Arakhamia or Budanov, as one of them could become the future president—a president considered legitimate by Russia, provided they agree to Putin's terms (which would be more lenient than the Istanbul agreements).
While the situation on the ground has currently stabilized for the Russians, the blockade of Crimea and strikes deep within Russian territory are fueling growing discontent within Russian society—among both the elites and the general public. After all, most of the factories being hit belong to Russian oligarchs, and they are suffering colossal losses from the war every day.
Every night, hundreds of Ukrainian drones inflict real damage on the Russian economy. Last night, sirens sounded in several Russian regions for the first time since the war began. The geographical scope of the strikes is gradually expanding. Recently, there has also been widespread use of "Flamingo" missiles, which have a range of thousands of kilometers. The strikes have become combined operations. Russia cannot inflict equivalent damage in return because all major industrial and energy sector facilities have already been bombed repeatedly since the start of the war. What would truly make an impact is the destruction of the bridges across the Dnieper. Furthermore, the Russians are currently systematically dismantling the port of Odesa with their strikes. Yesterday, Ukraine struck the Sevastopol State Museum, a symbol of the city. We see Zelenskyy escalating the situation more and more. This implies that retaliatory strikes on Kyiv or the bridges work to his advantage; the greater the destruction, the more money flows in from Europe. And don't overlook nuances such as the fact that India is the largest supplier of diesel to Ukraine—fuel refined in India from Russian oil. Similarly, Romania and Hungary supply gas to Ukraine that they themselves receive from Russia. Ukraine's energy system has been fragmented into small, isolated segments; when a single facility is hit, it can be repaired very quickly. I believe that, under these circumstances, Ukraine will hold out at least until the autumn cold sets in. This is evident in Zelenskyy’s recent smug and brazen demeanor. He weathered the crisis surrounding the Mindich tapes and shifted his war strategy, yielding results. The current situation resembles World War I, with the key difference being that Germany did not possess nuclear weapons back then. Had uprisings not broken out in Germany at that time, they likely would have erupted in France shortly thereafter. We do not know for certain the extent of Russia's resilience compared to that of the united West. The question is who can suppress mass unrest—which will sooner or later erupt—for the longest time and most effectively. We are leaving Ukraine out of the equation; Zelensky and the united West have the Ukrainian people in a tight stranglehold.
As for Russia, it faces daily strikes, the intensity of which—at the very least—will not diminish...
Whether the Russians can turn the tide on the front line on a large scale remains a major question at this moment.
You can see that my view of the situation differs somewhat from yours.
I think we might be approaching the end game. The US is fucked in Iran, the war just restarted again, and the US economy is on the brink because they’re running out of the reserve and won’t be able to stabilize gas prices for long now. Europe is collapsing as well, and nobody in the west cares about Ukraine at this point. It’s barely even mentioned in the news here now. It’s over.
I wonder what would happen if Trump were impeached right now and a new president took office? How would they handle the Iran issue? Say, if the Democrats came to power, for instance.
It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is just blame everything on Trump and bow out.
Yes, I think Iran has a much better chance of decisively defeating the US than Russia does. Iran has a clear stance, whereas Russia constantly wavers. At times, Putin resembles Trump with his "red lines" and loud rhetoric. This is because Zelenskyy has adopted the Iranian strategy of warfare, where—despite the enemy's overwhelming superiority in weaponry and resources—one can still deal them very painful blows. There is currently no effective countermeasure against this type of strategy. The strikes target the economy for the most part, rather than military installations.
Yes, if Trump fails to stop the war, something bad might well start happening by autumn—both in Europe and in the US...
However, I don't think this will affect the war in Ukraine in the short term. Although rumors are circulating here that the war will end in the autumn—I haven't found the original source for this, but I'm hearing it from various quarters. We shall see.
I maintain that you have to look at the big picture here. The war isn't between Russia and Ukraine, it's between the west and the east. And the principle players are the US and China. So, the real question is which bloc can maintain discipline longer. As I've said many times before, Russia collapsing or becoming politically unstable would be a disaster for China. They rely on Russian food and energy imports, and Russia protects China's western flank. If Russia was destabilized or balkanized, then it would become China's Ukraine. Therefore, it's obvious that China cannot allow that to happen under any circumstances. If Russia was genuinely in trouble then China would do everything in its power to bail them out. There's no two ways about it.
Given this unarguable fact, the next question is who is in a better position to provide support. Can the US help Europe more than China can help Russia? Again, the answer is obvious, China being the industrial superpower, is in a far better position to support Russia materially than the US is to support Europe. In fact, the US itself is largely dependent on Chinese imports to function. And China cutting off critical things like rare earths is already affecting military production in America.
So, given all that, there's only one way this war can go. You can look at all the palace intrigue, and the drones, and all the media about attacks on Russia, but what I explain above is the underlying hard reality of the situation. Everything else is just surface noise. If Russia loses then China is fucked, and given that China is the strongest player here that just will not happen.
And I don't see what they can do to get out of Iran now. The problem is that Israel is now in an existential crisis, and they will not allow the US to leave. Given the amount of influence Israel has over the US, they will continue to drag them into deeper conflict with Iran. We can already see how the war has restarted and likely to escalate now that the US is attacking stuff like water facilities in Iran.
I can't see how anything changes in a major way in Ukraine before autumn, but once the global energy shock hits, that's when things are going to start moving fast. Right now, the US and other countries are frantically dumping their oil reserves on the market to depress the prices, but those are going to run out very soon. After that there's just not going to be enough oil to go around.
I maintain that you have to look at the big picture here. The war isn’t between Russia and Ukraine, it’s between the west and the east. And the principle players are the US and China. So, the real question is which bloc can maintain discipline longer. As I’ve said many times before, Russia collapsing or becoming politically unstable would be a disaster for China. They rely on Russian food and energy imports, and Russia protects China’s western flank. If Russia was destabilized or balkanized, then it would become China’s Ukraine. Therefore, it’s obvious that China cannot allow that to happen under any circumstances. If Russia was genuinely in trouble then China would do everything in its power to bail them out. There’s no two ways about it.
To you, Russia’s defeat means Russia’s capitulation—something that is hardly likely. Yes, you’re right.
For me, Russia’s defeat means having Nazis left in my city.
Yes, you are absolutely right: China won’t allow Russia to be defeated, but it has no need for a strong Russia, either.
Freezing the conflict would be quite acceptable to China. It is also not in China’s interest for the West to lift sanctions on Russia; that is a fact.
And another fact is that China is profiting handsomely from this war. It sells dual-use goods to both sides of the conflict.
Yes, I agree that China acts solely in its own interests... its GDP is skyrocketing. China is prospering—that is indisputable.
Given this unarguable fact, the next question is who is in a better position to provide support. Can the US help Europe more than China can help Russia?
Yes, if it wanted to, China could help Russia win. But let me repeat: if it wanted to!
You can see that the US and Europe have essentially gone all-in right now; they are stretched to their limits—especially considering the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, China is taking it easy. Confucianism advocates for victory without a fight. That’s certainly wise.
I’d like that too—sitting on the couch with popcorn, watching a brutal slaughter, and winning in the process. That’s not something I know how to do; I guess you have to be really smart for that... )))
If I’d made smart moves like that in my life, I swear to you, I’d be a millionaire by now! There was a time when I could have climbed the ladder of success by stepping right over the heads of my loved ones and partners. I could have shortchanged my workers while raking in huge profits. I thought that was the right way to do things—that somewhere up in heaven, it would be duly recognized... what a naive fool I was!
But when I suddenly found myself cast aside by life, I had an epiphany. First, I stopped going to church because I realized it only "helps" the rich and successful. Second, I realized that in the capitalist world, you won't get anywhere if you’re honest, open, and decent—you simply won't survive. That’s a dogma, Comrade! A Biblical one, at that. ))))
The capitalist world is a three-headed serpent; the names of those heads are cunning, meanness, and betrayal!
And I don’t see what they can do to get out of Iran now. The problem is that Israel is now in an existential crisis, and they will not allow the US to leave. Given the amount of influence Israel has over the US, they will continue to drag them into deeper conflict with Iran. We can already see how the war has restarted and likely to escalate now that the US is attacking stuff like water facilities in Iran.
Yes, I fully agree—however cynical it may sound—that Russia was lucky in this regard.
but once the global energy shock hits
In southern Russia, especially in Crimea, people are facing major fuel shortages. I agree with you that this won't be fatal for the situation at the front, but for the people, it’s a huge problem.
Listen to this guy—he’s Russian; I’ve marked the spot. Just keep in mind that he might be downplaying the issue, since he’s a Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent.
https://youtu.be/hGi66DHc5TI?t=309
He’s a war correspondent of this caliber:
I don't think Russia can stay stable if the conflict is frozen though. That's just not gonna fly politically, and political instability creates a risk for China in the long term. You gotta keep in mind that Chinese tend to have a very long perspective on things, and they're not looking for quick wins. They know the west is coming after them next, and they understand perfectly well that the war is bigger than Russia and Ukraine. If they don't defeat the west here, then the west gets a chance to regroup and try again. This is the same danger Russia and China face here together. And when Russia wins, it's till going to be highly dependent on China economically which means China will continue to exercise a ton of influence over Russia. On top of that, Chinese will probably get a ton of reconstruction and resource development contracts in Ukraine. All of that cannot happen if there's a frozen conflict. So, there's simply way more to gain by winning than letting this fester.
Letting the war drag out to drain the west certainly does seem to be what China is doing. I think they're aiming for a comprehensive victory here where the west becomes so depleted that they have to accept a new world order. You say they're supplying both sides, but here's what's actually happening https://www.mining.com/web/us-business-group-says-some-critical-minerals-are-nearly-unobtainable-from-china/
China cut the west off from critical inputs they need to produce weapons. So, now the west isn't able to restock what they've spent over 4 years in Ukraine and now in Iran. The inventories here keep going down, and there's nothing the west can do about it lacking its own industries.
Listen to this guy
And this is what I was saying about Bunaov being shuffled to the head of the army. The strategy is shifting towards naked terrorism now.
And when Russia wins, it’s till going to be highly dependent on China economically which means China will continue to exercise a ton of influence over Russia.
There are various possible scenarios. In one of them, Russia wins, and relations with Europe—along with the Nord Stream pipelines—are restored. This scenario is not in China's interest.
So, there’s simply way more to gain by winning than letting this fester.
A moderate victory—that’s optimal for China.
China cut the west off from critical inputs they need to produce weapons. So, now the west isn’t able to restock what they’ve spent over 4 years in Ukraine and now in Iran. The inventories here keep going down, and there’s nothing the west can do about it lacking its own industries.
I would really like it to be that way!
And this is what I was saying about Bunaov being shuffled to the head of the army.
At the moment, Syrsky is handling his duties reasonably well; he is doing everything he can, regardless of the cost in casualties. So far, however, there have been no major breakthroughs. Besides, one has to hold the front line, not just wage a campaign of terror.
I really can't see how relations with Europe could be restored at this point. There would have to be a revolution in Europe before that happens.
And I'm just going by what Zelensky said when Blumenthal visited. They openly stated that they're going to be shuffling Syrsky out by fall, and it's clear the directive is coming from the US. It could be that Americans are hoping to transition to something like Chechnya soon.
I really can’t see how relations with Europe could be restored at this point. There would have to be a revolution in Europe before that happens.
Yes, I agree; the EU looks relatively united right now. Trump has backed down, the global fuel crisis has been averted, and while there will be complications, they won't be critical—unless Bibi sticks his long nose in again. Because, it seems to me, if the war ends, Netanyahu will be ousted. For him, just as for Zelensky, the end of the war spells political death.
And Trump has finally realized he can't break Iran.
Trump is shifting his focus back to Ukraine. That "dynamic duo" will be heading to Moscow again.
I don't get it—isn't Putin tired of this? Flirting with Trump again, sending warm birthday wishes... The circus act is starting all over again. After his setback with Iran, Trump needs to do something before autumn: either secure peace in Ukraine, attack Cuba, or something similar. I think he’s lost his appetite for war after that last incident, so he’ll opt for "peace" in Ukraine. What leverage he’ll use this time, though, is unclear to me.
The G7 summit is taking place today, and—as always—Ukraine has crossed yet another red line. There was a massive strike on Moscow. This is bound to happen regularly from now on; things will only escalate.
Yes, given the unfavorable situation at the front, Ukraine has little choice but to resort to deep-strike attacks and terrorism as a countermeasure. However, this is unlikely to affect the actual frontline; it is aimed at the civilian population to sow fear and create hardships—financial and otherwise. That said, I believe Russia has been preparing for this since winter, back when the blocking of social media platforms began.
I suspect Putin won't make any rash moves right now; he has made it clear that he is banking on developments on the ground—at the front. We shall see; perhaps he knows something more.
They openly stated that they’re going to be shuffling Syrsky out by fall, and it’s clear the directive is coming from the US. It could be that Americans are hoping to transition to something like Chechnya soon.
If we’re talking about Chechnya, it probably would have been better to make Budanov president and install a military government.
By the way, there has been a noticeable rise in public opposition to the TCK [military recruitment offices] recently. Something will have to be done about this in the foreseeable future, too. Incidents of mobs beating up TCK officers have become more frequent. I’m not saying this will necessarily lead to an uprising anytime soon, though. It’s just that TCK officers feel very uncomfortable in the city because everyone hates them—both Western and Eastern Ukrainians. It turns out that a common enemy unites both the "Banderites" and the Russian-speaking population of southeastern Ukraine. You can see it all on social media here. There is growing hatred directed at both Zelensky and the TCK. Even those who want Ukraine to win have come to hate Zelensky and the TCK. It’s like a parallel reality here. Everyone here—the ones with "pots on their heads"
https://youtu.be/H2Pratb_TNw?t=52
—seems to have developed bipolar disorder.
I used to say that being American isn't a nationality, but a diagnosis—back when I listened to American politicians or watched CNN. It was nothing but contradictions. Now I see the same thing happening with Ukrainians. I’ve now fully realized from personal experience what American propaganda is all about.
If you dig deeper, it’s not even just American propaganda; it’s Goebbels-style propaganda—the kind that turns people not only into schizophrenics but also into cruel, ruthless individuals.
I don't think the crisis has been averted. It's going to take a long time before energy prices get back to normal because restarting production can't happen overnight. Just clearing the backlog of tankers in the gulf is going to take over a year. I also don't see Israel stopping attacking Lebanon which means the fighting is likely to restart soon.
Trump wants to get out desperately, but he has no way out because Israel won't play along. From Russian perspective it makes sense to play along though because it drives Europeans up the wall. And I don't see what leverage he has left either.
And completely agree that strikes just serve to remind people in Russia why the war is necessary. The overall situation on the front won't change, but it will help with firming up public support to remove the threat.
It does look like Russia is ramping up deep strikes on infrastructure especially now that the US ran out of patriots during their Iran fiasco. I think this will be significant over time, and affect logistics going forward which will accelerate the events on the front.
I saw a video just yesterday of some kid beating up TCK cause they took his dad. Yes, public is definitely starting to turn on them.
And American style propaganda does in fact have its origins with Goebbels, I might've sent this before. It explains everything very clearly. https://royallib.com/read/artemov_vladimir/psihologicheskaya_voyna_v_strategii_imperializma.html#0
So far, Lucas has not been spotted in Ukraine.
It has begun—the very thing you and I discussed long ago... The thing I was banned for for 10 days—it has happened.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/cx21rjge20po
Here is the move by Russia that could produce the intended effect.
If Russia was intentionally going to do an attack outside Ukraine they would do a bigger one, likely with Oreshnik and on a military target. I think two most likely possibilities here is either a stray drone or Ukraine using a scavenged one to try draw NATO in.
Yes, I agree with you. I was just emotional... )))
Yes, it was probably Ukrainian electronic warfare that deflected the Russian drone, or it was a Ukrainian provocation to draw NATO into the war. Ukraine is also provoking Belarus to join the war. This is all part of Zelenskyy's strategy.
What you and I predicted has begun: a frenzied wave of propaganda has recently erupted in the Ukrainian media. Every morning I open the news and it's filled with headlines like: Russia has almost lost Crimea, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have broken through at the front, Russia is panicking, Putin is almost dead, etc. I haven't seen such a wave in a long time. People are talking about the 1991 borders again.
It's been suspiciously quiet here lately. Not even the sirens are wailing.
Kyiv has finally been affected. People are heading down to the metro at night. Everyone's waiting for that blow.
By the way, look, this is Yakutsk, where socialism still reigns... )))
It's as if time stood still there.
I expect there might be genuine panic that Russia will open up another front from Belarus and threaten Kiev again. And that video was interesting, it's good to see how much of Russia still retains so much Soviet imagery. I think that as people continue becoming disillusioned with capitalism, there is a real possibility of changing course. While I know we disagree on China, I do think that China, Vietnam, and DPRK being major allies and trading partners will help nudge people in the right direction. Now people can travel there easily, see how things are for themselves, and they will ask natural questions after that.
I expect there might be genuine panic that Russia will open up another front from Belarus and threaten Kiev again.
Russia doesn't need this; it would have to redeploy additional troops. The front line there is 1,500 kilometers long. It would take about 300,000 men just to hold it. Nor does Lukashenko need this; Ukraine would simply overwhelm Belarus with drones.
And that video was interesting, it’s good to see how much of Russia still retains so much Soviet imagery.
What surprised me was that this memorial was built in 2017. Inscribed on it is an expression of gratitude to the USSR from grateful descendants! This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything like this in Russia. You probably realize now just how much better people living beyond the Urals had it under the USSR—if they still miss it so intensely to this day! Complete devastation reigns there now.
While I know we disagree on China, I do think that China, Vietnam, and DPRK being major allies and trading partners will help nudge people in the right direction. Now people can travel there easily, see how things are for themselves, and they will ask natural questions after that.
Yes, I can see that the process has begun—right before my very eyes, thoughtful Westerners are starting to see the light!
You have to admit that the war in Ukraine gave it the push it needed, don't you?
There is a big reserve Russia hasn't committed yet, and people have been wondering why for a long time. I'm also not really sure Ukraine can overwhelm anything with drones. While you get pictures and videos with lots of fire, there's no systemic effect from this. The whole drone campaign is just meant to produce propaganda videos to keep the money flowing.
The fact that capitalism made life worse for the majority of people is why I think it will fail once again. And the war is absolutely the catalyst here. It's what severed relations between Russia and Europe forcing Russia to look to Asia. There wouldn't be free travel to DPRK right now if it wasn't for the war, I can tell you that. A lot of people go there and they're nostalgic because they see echos of USSR there. The war also hurts the domestic economy, so people are much more aware of the contradictions as a result. On top of that, the west has discredited itself, and shown it's true face. I don't think there's any going back from that. So, eastern model of development is the one that will be the one that Russia will likely emulate.
There is a big reserve Russia hasn’t committed yet, and people have been wondering why for a long time. I’m also not really sure Ukraine can overwhelm anything with drones. While you get pictures and videos with lots of fire, there’s no systemic effect from this. The whole drone campaign is just meant to produce propaganda videos to keep the money flowing.
As you can see, exactly what we discussed recently is now unfolding.
Russia seeks to avoid escalation and continues to absorb the blows. Zelenskyy and Europe—having crossed yet another "red line"—have dealt an even more painful strike against St. Petersburg. This comes just ahead of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum—an event that will feature delegations from various nations (including the U.S.) and be personally attended by Putin. Right now, the entire city of St. Petersburg is shrouded in smoke, and it is unlikely the fires will be extinguished anytime soon. Furthermore, video footage has captured drones flying directly in from the direction of the Gulf of Finland—most likely launched from airspace over Estonia. By now, everyone is aware of this.
Russia continues to remain silent—but things are only going to get worse.
And the war is absolutely the catalyst here. It’s what severed relations between Russia and Europe forcing Russia to look to Asia.
Yes, you may recall from the recently published transcripts of Putin's conversations with Clinton: Putin stated that he did not want to deal with Iran or North Korea. China, too, would not have been a priority—just as it isn't now.
As I keep saying, it does not make sense for Russia to escalate until elections in France and Germany happen. If Russia escalates against Europe then that will burn any bridges going forward. If the current regimes fall in either France or Germany than the whole European war effort will collapse. Given the growing energy crisis in Europe, it's very likely that there will be change in direction going forward.
Yes, that makes sense.
We’ll have to see what happens in the next three month when the real energy shortages hit https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/oil-market-clock-is-ticking-supply-crunch-looms-2026-05-21/
I still think this will be the big deciding factor.
Let’s put it this way: this is the only factor capable of bringing the war to a halt in the near future.
As for the situation on the ground, we are witnessing yet another spiral of escalation. The stakes are rising—particularly in the wake of the recent Ukrainian strike on a student dormitory in the Luhansk region. Eighteen teenagers—both boys and girls—were pulled from the rubble. Retaliation now lies ahead...
It is as if even nature itself is serving as a reminder of this; right now, the sky above us looks like this.
You saw how even Kid Starver tried to roll back sanctions on Russian energy
As far as I know, the sanctions against Russia have already been lifted for another month.
Maybe that's not what I'm talking about.
Europe can talk a big talk
We know perfectly well that they have no other choice; they will go all the way.
The "end" comes when popular unrest boils over. For now, Europe has the situation under control.
I believe that if a fuel crisis does strike Europe, it will happen in August or September—precisely when vast quantities of fuel are needed to power machinery during the harvest season. I’ve already observed that farmers there are facing significant difficulties even without this added burden. We have witnessed farmer protests in various European countries on numerous occasions. I suspect that this sector will serve as the primary driving force behind future protests, eventually joined by workers from other industries affected by the fuel crisis. However, this scenario will only unfold if Europe fails to stabilize the situation in the fuel market. Protests of this magnitude require extremely compelling grounds.
If I were to post this on Reddit, I’d be banned instantly. I am not advocating for protests; rather, I am attempting to visualize the scenario—to imagine how such events might be triggered. I’ve imagined how it might start; as for how it might end—that, too, is conceivable: it will all culminate in Hungary and Slovakia becoming the wealthiest nations in Europe, as refugees from Brussels, London, and Paris come flocking to their borders... ))) And those with a bit more daring might head to Russia—to work on construction sites... ))) I’m only joking about that last part, of course; I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone...
Moreover, nothing is predetermined yet; the ultimate outcome of this unfolding drama remains shrouded in deep uncertainty.
Agree with all that, the harvest season is going to be when the fuel demand spikes, and that's also when the reserves are projected to be depleted. So, that could be the crisis moment. And from what I saw there was another Oreshnik strike last night, but I don't think it really has the same effect at this point. Yes, a bunch of stuff in Kiev is burning now, but it's not really going to change anything. I'm now convinced that economy will be the deciding factor in the end. Speaking of that, did you see how European Commission put out a report saying that Russian GDP growth for 2026 is expected at 1.3%, and EU was lowered to 1.1%.
- https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-forecast-and-surveys/economic-forecasts/spring-2026-economic-forecast-slowdown-growth-energy-shock-drives-inflation_en#gdp-growth-map
- https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3360898c-cd40-46c0-b170-7adfcb993add_en?filename=ip341_en.pdf#page=197
If they're saying this openly, I'm guessing the real situation is a lot worse then they're letting on. We'll see if they manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat to solve the fuel crisis, but I just don't see where the fuel is going to come from. And Europe now competes with Asia for whatever fuel is on the market too. So, next few months will be very interesting.
I’m now convinced that economy will be the deciding factor in the end. Speaking of that, did you see how European Commission put out a report saying that Russian GDP growth for 2026 is expected at 1.3%, and EU was lowered to 1.1%.
It turns out I guessed correctly: farmers will be the first to suffer—specifically when the harvest begins.
In two months, we will realize just how serious the crisis in Europe really is.
Google Translate doesn't handle this format, but I got the gist of what it's about.
So, that could be the crisis moment. And from what I saw there was another Oreshnik strike last night, but I don’t think it really has the same effect at this point.
Yes, nobody is surprised by the Oreshnik anymore—the visual spectacle just doesn't have the same shock value it used to. There was no palpable sense of terror. At the start of the war, things were much more intense in Kyiv; people were sleeping in the metro for weeks on end. That simply wasn't the case this time.
It appears that, for the moment, Russia is not prepared to further escalate the conflict.
I’m now convinced that economy will be the deciding factor in the end.
Надежда умирает последней!)))
Yeah, shortages will likely start in a couple months, and then there's going to be a spike in demand for fuel in fall when it's planting season. And if farmers can't afford the fuel to plant, there there could be a food crisis across Europe. It's entirely possible Russia is waiting to see how bad the situation in Europe gets in the next couple of months before escalating.
One can surmise the plans Ukraine is currently formulating for the coming months.
Disregarding casualties, the objective is to nullify all Russian offensive efforts while—in one specific sector (Zaporizhzhia)—breaching Russian defenses, again without regard for losses. We observe that, of late, systematic strikes are being launched against the logistical artery running from Russia southward toward the Zaporizhzhia region. That entire road is already littered with burnt-out military hardware, which is hampering supply lines to the Zaporizhzhia front.
Furthermore, there is the systematic delivery of painful strikes deep within Russian territory.
All of this is aimed at ratcheting up the domestic political tension in Russia—and public discontent regarding the war—by the time of the autumn parliamentary elections. Against the backdrop of current events, this is a very real possibility.
No, Russia is not simply waiting; Russia has no time to spare. It needs to demonstrate tangible results and victories by autumn so that its people can at least understand why they are forced to endure daily Ukrainian drone attacks.
At this moment, the outcomes of the summer campaign are of critical importance to Russia—real results. And the crisis in Europe, which is expected to unfold in a few months, cannot in any way alter the course of events.
By piecing all the facts together, we can now understand the true significance of the "Spirit of Anchorage"—and exactly what Putin and Trump agreed upon there.
The Ukrainians would be required to withdraw their troops from the Donbas and then sit down at the negotiating table, where issues such as the size of Ukraine's armed forces, language policy, religious matters, and the like would be discussed.
However, it seems to me that had Zelenskyy agreed to withdraw troops from the Donbas, he would not have survived long enough to reach the negotiating stage; he would have been ousted by disgruntled Ukrainians. The moment the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCK) are disbanded, the public will react aggressively; likewise, the AFU soldiers returning from the front lines would tear Zelenskyy apart. I have spoken with people who are fighting over there. They all hate Zelenskyy! Both the "Bucha-fied" troops and the regular ones—of whom not many remain. They will not forgive him for the "meat grinder" assaults. They are already expressing deep outrage over what is unfolding in the Zaporizhzhia sector. The Russians simply cannot fight in such a suicidal manner; that is why they are currently retreating there.
Therefore, a withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Donbas would amount to a death sentence for Zelenskyy. That is why Trump was unable to force Zelenskyy’s hand—and why Trump once again deceived Putin, having promised him that he would persuade Zelenskyy to do so. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has once again caught his stride; he looks remarkably energetic and has resumed hurling insults at Putin. And the "Mindich Tapes" are of no consequence to him; as far as he is concerned, everything is just fine.
Putin has now vowed to launch systematic strikes against Kyiv, but I suspect this is merely a tactic to frighten the populace—assuming, that is, that these strikes unfold just as they have in the past. What is needed is a tangible result. Indiscriminate, ineffective strikes serve only to play into Zelenskyy’s hands, providing him with fodder for public relations campaigns in Europe.
Seems to me that it's most likely Russia is going to ramp things up in the near future. And the focus will be on deep strikes on command centres and industry. Lavrov made it pretty clear that gloves are coming off. One big factor was that China didn't really want escalation previously, but it looks like Americans managed to piss the Chinese off royally during their visit. Seems like after Russians went to China they agreed that Ukraine needs to get wrapped up, and that dialogue with Americans is impossible.
A good discussion with a former CIA analyst on the whole thing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVVyS7NtB5k
Seems to me that it’s most likely Russia is going to ramp things up in the near future.
Yes, without this, there won't be any meaning at all...
And the focus will be on deep strikes on command centres and industry. Lavrov made it pretty clear that gloves are coming off.
As for industrial facilities—strikes against them will no longer make any serious impression.
As for decision-making centers—that depends on how effective Russia's intelligence capabilities are. Russia possesses nothing even remotely comparable to the intelligence assets held by the United States and Israel. I do not believe Russia is capable of executing strikes with such precision. During their recent "retaliatory strike" against Kyiv, they attempted to achieve something, but the result was nil—including in terms of intimidating the civilian population.
Seems like after Russians went to China they agreed that Ukraine needs to get wrapped up, and that dialogue with Americans is impossible.
I am skeptical about this. It seems to me that China will not risk a severe escalation with the United States. China will continue to play a waiting game.
Meanwhile, in Russia—on state-run channels—everyone keeps talking about the "Spirit of Anchorage." I was reading about it there again just yesterday.
At this moment, the situation remains uncertain. The Russians have realized that Trump is unable to bring the war to an end. Now, everyone is waiting to see what further actions Russia will take.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVVyS7NtB5k
As the saying goes: the only good CIA agent is a dead CIA agent... )))) However, I think he got his facts mixed up.
In 1689, the Treaty of Nerchinsk was signed—the first agreement between Russia and China (the Qing Empire). The Russian Tsardom: It lost a significant portion of the Amur region as well as lands along the upper Amur River. Russia was forced to dismantle the fortress of Albazin and liquidate the Russian settlements located there; the border was established along the Argun and Gorbitsa rivers.
For Russia, this was a humiliating outcome—not the other way around. The second guy was right: China was the one that suffered territorial losses under the Treaty of Aigun, during the reign of Alexander II.
Comrade, I listened to his take on the conflict over Damansky Island, and it hit me... ))) It turns out that the Soviets were the ones planning to attack China.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYHGeLyuH5O/
Well, just think about it yourself: China lays claim to Soviet territory—territory that Nicholas II supposedly annexed illegally—yet, despite all this, the USSR is supposedly the one planning to attack China. Does that remind you of anything?... ))))
Back then, China had a idée fixe: to tear up the Treaties of Aigun and Peking.
The Treaties of Aigun and Peking (1858 and 1860) were key interstate agreements between the Russian Empire and the Manchu Qing Empire. They secured vast territories in the Far East for Russia and established the modern border with China.
At that time, China massed two divisions—15,000 troops—along its border with the USSR and was preparing to launch a major military operation.
And don't forget that just a year after the Damansky incident, the Chinese launched another attack—this time along the Kazakh border. Kazakhstan was not covered by the Treaty of Aigun. Kazakhstan has never belonged to China.
You’ll notice once again that the moment the conversation turns to China, contradictions immediately crop up between us. On every single issue.
People here keep telling me that I need to "think dialectically" in order to understand it all... ))) But I don't understand a damn thing...
I’ve known since childhood that it was China that wanted to attack—not the other way around. I remember that Brezhnev was deeply alarmed by the concentration of forces along the border, yet he issued orders not to succumb to provocations; consequently, the Chinese were met solely by border guards, who held the line against an overwhelming enemy force until the regular army could be brought up. These border guards were subsequently hailed as heroes throughout the USSR, though many of them perished.
As for the current relations between Russia and China, I would very much like to see what he says come true...
Iran makes it pretty clear just how bad US/Israeli intelligence is. And the US is no longer in any position to do escalation in China because they shat the bed in Iran. They're literally out of weapons at this point, and their economy is collapsing because of oil prices. Cost of filling up your car basically doubled now, and you can't go anywhere without a car in the US. This is the biggest crisis since Vietnam.
There is no other path for Russia or China today than what he says. Neither Chinese nor Russian leadership is stupid, and they can see that the only way they survive is by working together. And their economies are complimentary on top of that, they have nothing to fight about. Russia is a resource economy and China is a manufacturing one. It's the exact same situation as the US and Canada.
You must remember this guy. He served on the Central Committee under Gorbachev but stepped down from his post in 1991 when he realized where things were heading. This is Ryzhkov.
He had a remarkable life story. He rose from being a shop foreman at the Uralmash plant all the way to becoming the plant's Director—it’s like something out of a fairytale... :) He hailed from the Donbas region, from a family of coal miners, and truly worked his way up from the very bottom.
He has since passed away; this is one of his final interviews—you’ll see Spitsyn there as well. Incidentally, Spitsyn was a student of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov, whose books I’ve mentioned here before.
If you’re interested in the Soviet economy of the 1980s, you might find this worth watching.
Iran makes it pretty clear just how bad US/Israeli intelligence is. And the US is no longer in any position to do escalation in China because they shat the bed in Iran. They’re literally out of weapons at this point, and their economy is collapsing because of oil prices. Cost of filling up your car basically doubled now, and you can’t go anywhere without a car in the US. This is the biggest crisis since Vietnam.
Do you think Trump will make a deal with Iran?
I think Trump has no other choice.
There is no other path for Russia or China today than what he says.
China is also dependent on Russia—that's undeniable. Putin recently visited Kazakhstan, where he agreed with the Kazakh president to increase energy supplies to China.
The partnership will certainly develop, but moderately and cautiously, in the Chinese style.
Russia is a resource economy and China is a manufacturing one.
Yes, a major leap in industrialization is not expected in Russia yet. Russia's industrial sector is not doing well.
The oligarchs, who have been holding back industrial development in Russia since the 1990s, exert too much influence on the state. The oligarchs act like invaders, sucking resources out of the country and exploiting the Russian people. They instill false ideals in the people.
There's this oligarch named Malafeyev in Russia, a monarchist and religious obscurantist.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2015/02/150211_malofeyev_interview
He financed that lousy film.
And note that this film was blessed by some Elijah.
They want to remove Lenin's mausoleum so they can put God there with the Tsar.
This is an atavism.
Trump has no choice, but I don't see how he can make a deal on Iran's terms. It would be an incredible humiliation and Israel is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that. Given massive Israeli influence in the US, I expect any actual deal will be stopped in the end.
And yeah, the problem Russia has is the fact that it's a capitalist system which stands in the way of meaningful development. Since the masses need a shared narrative and world view that capitalism is unable to provide, religion is increasingly being slotted in to create national unity. This was unnecessary under the communist system which naturally united people.
Trump has no choice, but I don’t see how he can make a deal on Iran’s terms. It would be an incredible humiliation and Israel is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that. Given massive Israeli influence in the US, I expect any actual deal will be stopped in the end.
Yes, right now I find it hard to imagine how Trump intends to extricate himself from this situation. Trump faces a "tough decision"—either that, or he starts drinking vodka. The U.S. needs years to rebuild its military, not just weeks or months.
Currently, in a hasty scramble, they are field-testing their new technologies in Ukraine; however, I doubt the U.S. is capable of reorganizing its military as rapidly as Russia did at the start of the war. Then again, we shall see—perhaps Trump is a capable manager... (haha), even if he is currently neck-deep in shit. It seems to me that he won't be able to wash himself clean of this—nothing can save him now; he is a lame duck.
And yeah, the problem Russia has is the fact that it’s a capitalist system which stands in the way of meaningful development.
Just recently, I was trying to understand the difference between shortages in a planned economy and shortages in a capitalist economy.
I came to only one conclusion: under capitalism, shortages are highly profitable for capitalists; they allow them to generate excess profits while maintaining the same—or even lower—levels of production. A shortage is simply a mechanism for extracting additional funds from the public.
This is the very same scheme that speculators employed during the Soviet era—a practice for which they faced prison sentences. Under capitalism, however, these same individuals are regarded as highly respected figures in the world of macroeconomics—people like Trump and Musk. They ought to be shipped off to the USSR so they could finally be judged according to their true deserts—specifically for the things they are doing right now.
Just take a look: Russia, too, has its own Ma... доморощенный.
It’s all very simple and straightforward: you work harder, but you get paid the exact same amount. You’re working for the good of the Motherland... :))))
"The Motherland"—that’s actually Deripaska’s codename in certain circles... :))) Oh, how I miss Comrade Beria.
This was unnecessary under the communist system which naturally united people.
Stalin didn't ban the Church, which implies that it was, after all, necessary—especially during times of hardship. It was mainly women who went there—women whose husbands were either at the front or had already perished. There, they found at least some measure of solace to keep from losing their minds during the war.
But Solzhenitsyn and his ilk decided that Stalin—the Antichrist—had repented and come to believe in God... )))) And they’ve been playing that same broken record for forty years now.... The only thing missing from that story was Rasputin....
Just recently, a new Russian film aired on Russian TV channels... It’s the kind of thing that would make Dr. Lecter look like a nervous amateur. The story goes that when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow in '41, Stalin was in despair and didn't know what to do; so, he decided to visit a vedunya—a blind old seer. The sorceress handed Stalin a wooden icon and said: "This icon must be flown around Moscow three times..." ))))) Stalin took the icon and entrusted it to the Soviet Union's finest pilot. The pilot proceeded to circle Moscow repeatedly while under heavy fire from German anti-aircraft guns. By some miracle, he managed to fly around Moscow three times. And what do you think, comrade? The Germans immediately retreated from Moscow... )))) С Божьей помощью!
They’ve completely lost their minds over these icons!
And this is the disgrace I am forced to witness right now. And just try saying anything against God...
And agree capitalism is built on extraction, and every crisis creates opportunities for somebody. Especially true when that somebody is causing the crisis and they have inside information. Russell actually had a great essay on the whole extraction mechanic https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
And yeah religion is being pushed in a very obvious way, although I recall seeing a survey last yeah I think where it showed that number of religious people is about the same as ever.
Russell actually had a great essay on the whole extraction mechanic https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
I’ve never heard of this guy. But having read his work, I can say with absolute certainty that he has never done physical labor in his life; he views physical work as the worst punishment imaginable. I don’t know—perhaps he is a highly revered and famous figure—but he hasn’t the faintest clue about the mindset of a working man. He describes the psychology of a slave, not a worker.
I have interacted with hundreds—if not thousands—of workers throughout my life. I can state unequivocally that what he writes is simply untrue! I have seen countless workers who derive genuine pleasure from their jobs; in fact, I’d go even further and say that they live for their work. And his assumption that, given an abundance of free time, they would suddenly start painting pictures or writing poetry just makes me smile! A working man feels lost without his work. And when a working man feels lost without work, he doesn't head off to the theater or the opera; he drinks vodka. To draw a worker toward art, science, or a mind-expanding hobby, he requires a foundation of systematic knowledge—the kind that enables him to survey the full range of options and select the one that best suits his personal tastes. As for his anarchic notion of abolishing universities—I consider it utterly utopian.
However, I do partially agree with his core premise. And this is precisely the point—the one you and our Chinese comrade seem to miss—that I am constantly trying to articulate: a person who works more than eight hours a day will very quickly devolve into a Neanderthal, regardless of how much money they earn. Their intellect dulls; they lose the capacity for independent thought because they simply have no time to think—life rushes past them like a hurricane. And that is exactly what the capitalist wants: a herd of sheep marching in lockstep toward the "bright future" of capitalism.
last yeah I think where it showed that number of religious people is about the same as ever.
Perhaps things remain the same today; however, state propaganda has partially injected this ideological sludge into the school curriculum—specifically the works of Ilyin, for instance, who reveres only God and the Tsar. Their aim is to construct an ideology in the vein of Neo-monarchism.
Yeah, Russell is the quintessential British liberal, hence the disdain for the working class in all his work. But he does get at the irrationality of capitalism here where the goal is simply to maximize profit with no regard for anything else. I also very much agree with your point that overwork turns people into zombies.
My view is that required work should be minimized as much as possible, and people should have the ability to choose how they spend their time.
Also agree that's precisely how religion is being used right now, hopefully that fails.
Yeah, Russell is the quintessential British liberal, hence the disdain for the working class in all his work.
Yes, exactly, his article is steeped in contempt for work.
So much so that he considers writers and artists slackers—that sounds ridiculous to me.
Example: Jules Verne worked very intensively. His workday lasted up to 15 hours. The writer strictly adhered to the following schedule:
Start: early morning, from 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM.
Finish: late evening (around 8:00 PM). Daily output: he wrote 10 to 20 printed pages daily, which allowed him to publish several seminal novels a year.
How can you call this man a slacker, and where would he find the time to work for four hours, only to then... in his "free time" pursue creativity?
And what mark did this man leave on history?
But he does get at the irrationality of capitalism here where the goal is simply to maximize profit with no regard for anything else.
Yes, I liked his logic, at some point I even got carried away reading it.
I also very much agree with your point that overwork turns people into zombies.
I saw this with my own eyes in Moscow. People on the metro are empty-eyed, detached, and always in a hurry. Such are the conditions for survival there.
My view is that required work should be minimized as much as possible, and people should have the ability to choose how they spend their time.
I'm not sure about the 4-hour period. I doubt unemployment in more or less developed countries is 50%... it's probably not even like that in Africa.
But 6-8 hours, depending on the complexity of the job, would be normal.
My expectation is that most people would be productive even if they didn't have to work. People like making things, it's in our nature. Imagine a society where you had minimal work, but you had things like community workshops, and places where you can get together with people to build whatever you want. Like even public access to labs, factories and so on. I think we'd see incredible things getting made because people would get ideas, find like minded people and work on projects together just because they find them interesting. We actually see this happen with software and the whole open source movement already. Plenty of people write large software projects just because they find it interesting, they don't make any money off them, and the goal is purely to make something interesting. The reason it works for software is because anybody with a laptop can do it, but I think it would work exactly the same for building physical things if tools were readily available.
My expectation is that most people would be productive even if they didn’t have to work. People like making things, it’s in our nature. Imagine a society where you had minimal work, but you had things like community workshops, and places where you can get together with people to build whatever you want.
This can only be possible when AI is channeled in the right direction. AI should free people from work, not so they become unemployed, as would happen under capitalism, but so they have more time for creativity.
I think more attention should be paid to childhood education, so that children can be instilled with a passion for something sublime from an early age. How can you instill anything in a child today if all they see is profit?
The education system needs to be completely overhauled—that's where we need to start.
By the way, Stalin personally edited the first Soviet history textbook for schoolchildren. He also placed great emphasis on educating young people.
As that liberal philosopher who fears work said, it won't work! First education, then a creature—not the other way around. And studying is hard work, so you can't just slack off and become Lomonosov. We need an educational foundation for that. Therefore, from early childhood, children must work; they must become accustomed to work in order to achieve real results in the future. They also need an incentive to do so, and it's best if it's not money, but high ideals, as was the case in the USSR, the most educated and well-read country in the world. I've already experienced this firsthand: the horizons of a Westerner are much narrower than those of someone raised in the USSR. In the USSR, creative people were trained from school, while in the West, they produce narrow specialists who don't need anything beyond their specialty. They don't need critical thinking, for whom life is a chain of simple algorithms.
Plenty of people write large software projects just because they find it interesting, they don’t make any money off them, and the goal is purely to make something interesting.
I understand everything here because I experienced it myself, with my son.
The attraction to computer programs lies in the fact that a child, as soon as they begin to understand, immediately becomes passionately fascinated with computers. There comes a time when the child gets bored with computer games and wants to get something more from the computer, but the computer still fascinates them as much as ever. If your father is a millionaire, at this point you can turn into Bill Gates or Elon Musk.
The reason it works for software is because anybody with a laptop can do it, but I think it would work exactly the same for building physical things if tools were readily available.
But I would slightly modify your concept of the new world. It's not about people having free access to production facilities or laboratories, but about computer simulators of various processes in schools.
A cultural revolution in society is needed.
Every form of automation is turned against the worker under capitalism. AI will be no different here, and it might accelerate the collapse of the whole system.
And agree that education needs to change significantly at this point. A lot of education focuses on rote memorization, but what's really important now is the ability to integrate the available information, evaluate it, and make decisions. Basically, applying dialectical thinking to the world. Also very much agree that USSR education was far better and broader. Becoming an intellectual was basically seen as the way to move up in society. In the west it's just about making money which creates a very narrow and selfish horizon for people.
Teaching kids to experiment using computers in school is actually a really good idea. Once they develop the mindset it's applicable everywhere, and easily transfers to working with the physical world too.
I do think we'll need to restructure society in significant ways in the near future because technology is outpacing our existing social norms. Unfortunately these kinds of upheavals tend to be highly volatile socially.
Every form of automation is turned against the worker under capitalism.
Comrade, you know a thing or two about economics—please take a look at this video; it’s short. At the end, there are formulas he uses to prove the opposite.
Do you agree with this?
That’s Comrade Semin; Semin promoted him on YouTube. He’s a socialist, too.
It’s really gratifying to see young people in Russia starting to think so progressively. And most importantly, they base their arguments on science rather than Solzhenitsyn’s tall tales or fairy tales about God.
I’m convinced that the politics of common sense and science—which Musk championed before—for some reason—going quiet—will sooner or later prevail over the politics of obscurantism or "popcorn and Coke," both in Russia and the US.
I listened to Semin recently; he attended an international communist congress in Britain a few years back. He represented the Russian Communist Party there (not the CPRF).
And the main thing is—honestly, Comrade—he used the exact same words I’ve been using for a long time. Their concept of socialism is somewhat abstract; every speaker at the forum said something different—there’s no unified concept, no single clear idea; it’s all very unrefined.
But on the other hand, progressive youth there—not just those with socialist views—are starting to realize that capitalism has outlived its usefulness, that it’s a hollow sham. So, they’re beginning to look for an alternative. Meanwhile, in Russia, the so-called progressive youth are only just starting to soak up the joys of capitalist life, because they didn't get a chance to enjoy it for 40 years... ))) There’s a lag and some gaps here, too.
It turns out there’s a Marx Library in London; I didn't know that... ))))
"Marx remains relevant as long as capitalism exists."
And agree that education needs to change significantly at this point. A lot of education focuses on rote memorization, but what’s really important now is the ability to integrate the available information, evaluate it, and make decisions. Basically, applying dialectical thinking to the world. Also very much agree that USSR education was far better and broader. Becoming an intellectual was basically seen as the way to move up in society. In the west it’s just about making money which creates a very narrow and selfish horizon for people.
A quick side note: In the USSR, children were made to grow up early and shed their illusions, not the other way around.
As for Hollywood movies—if you strip away the sex, violence, and drugs, the vast majority of them are essentially children's films.
When I got to know American culture better, I was really surprised to learn that adults read comic books... In the USSR, the closest thing to comics was produced only for children who were just learning to read (before starting school). Personally, I was already reading Pushkin and had memorized several poems before I even started school—though I read comics, too.
Comic books, for crying out loud... )))) At age seven, I read H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds. I remember staying up all night in fear after reading The Time Machine.
And I’d borrowed the book from a classmate—a friend who had highly recommended it to me...
But why am I telling you this, Comrade? You were just like that yourself once... )))) You saw it all firsthand!
Teaching kids to experiment using computers in school is actually a really good idea. Once they develop the mindset it’s applicable everywhere, and easily transfers to working with the physical world too.
I’ll join Marx and add this: as long as capitalism exists, education will be crap! Because they aren’t raising intellectuals—they’re raising docile workers for their factories. Intellectuals don’t serve their interests; intellectuals think too much and notice too much... and then they say things that are highly inconvenient for the powers that be...
I do think we’ll need to restructure society in significant ways
I’m afraid restructuring won’t be enough.
Do you agree with this?
This is basically what Marx explains in the first volume of The Capital. It's good to see young people still read Marx in Russia. :)
And he's right that full automation is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism because the whole system is based around consumption. You need wage workers who produce value, and then pay the capital owner to consume goods. If you eliminate wage workers from the system there's nobody left to consume the goods. And once you have the majority of population become useless within the system it can no longer function.
But on the other hand, progressive youth there—not just those with socialist views—are starting to realize that capitalism has outlived its usefulness, that it’s a hollow sham
Basically what happened was that the US sat out the second world war and developed its economy while the rest of the world burned. Then they used their head start to prop up their ideological bloc during the Cold War and created the whole mythology that capitalism was a superior system and the standard of living in the west wasn't because the US had a huge head start, but because capitalism is a superior system. Now that China has caught up and capitalism has destroyed all the material benefits western public enjoyed, we're seeing the new generation sobering up.
And I'm still shocked how nobody actually reads books here. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me. Just like you, I was reading from the young age, cause there really wasn't much other type of entertainment. And reading really opened up your imagination, I'm incredibly grateful for growing up in USSR and having developed this habit. Reading a good book is still by far the most enjoyable experience for me.
incidentally https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleases/202512/17/content_WS6941fa8bc6d00ca5f9a08243.html
It’s good to see young people still read Marx in Russia. :)
In Russia, Marx is inseparable from Lenin.
By the way, listen to the story of how Russian officials, together with their Chinese counterparts, are selling a massive Soviet factory to China for scrap metal. It’s a disgrace!
When Platoshkin exposed this criminal scheme, a local official simply blew up the factory to cover his tracks...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qsA-IegBgcg
And he’s right that full automation is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism because the whole system is based around consumption. You need wage workers who produce value, and then pay the capital owner to consume goods. If you eliminate wage workers from the system there’s nobody left to consume the goods. And once you have the majority of population become useless within the system it can no longer function.
And once again, capitalism is doing harm—this time, to the advancement of progress.
Basically what happened was that the US sat out the second world war and developed its economy while the rest of the world burned. Then they used their head start to prop up their ideological bloc during the Cold War and created the whole mythology that capitalism was a superior system and the standard of living in the west wasn’t because the US had a huge head start, but because capitalism is a superior system. Now that China has caught up and capitalism has destroyed all the material benefits western public enjoyed, we’re seeing the new generation sobering up.
As I understand it, during the Iron Curtain era, the only information that reached us from the other side was propaganda. And as I’ve come to realize decades later: Soviet propaganda told 90% the truth about the West, whereas Western propaganda told 90% lies about the USSR.
That is why people in the West are only now beginning to understand what socialism actually is—now that advanced Western capitalism has gone into a tailspin. I remember when I first joined Western forums back in 2015; people’s jaws would drop at the stories I told. At first, they didn't believe me—they thought I was making it all up! I became very popular very quickly on that first Western forum.
cause there really wasn’t much other type of entertainment.
Comrade, those are just Western tall tales... )))) Деревянные игрушки, скользкий подоконник, каляска без дна))) I was never a homebody as a child. There was a sports ground in every courtyard; we played soccer there every day—it was impossible to get me to come home. In the winter, they’d flood the area to make an ice rink, and we’d play hockey. When my parents bought me a computer—a ZX Spectrum—I went wild and started skipping school, but even so, there was always a book on my nightstand; I read every day before bed.
Yeah, that's the ironic part, it turns out that Soviets didn't really have to make stuff up about the west while the west had to spin tall tales about evils of communism. I do think that it was a failure of Soviet education system that it failed to make people really understand the problem with capitalism. I remember when I was a kid at school, there was no discussion about it, nobody really gave it any thought. But you look in the west, and indoctrination starts very early on. Not just in schools too, it's in TV shows, comic books, everything. And we see now just how effective this type of indoctrination is.
And yeah, that's fair, I meant specifically in terms of media entertainment. I did spend a lot of time outside with my friends as a kid. This is, incidentally, another thing you can't do in the west. My parents would just let me go out by myself when I was 8 years old without a single worry. I'd go out in the morning, come back lunch, and hang out with friends the rest of the day. That's how safe things were. That sort of thing would be unthinkable in Canada today.
Yeah, that’s the ironic part, it turns out that Soviets didn’t really have to make stuff up about the west while the west had to spin tall tales about evils of communism. I do think that it was a failure of Soviet education system that it failed to make people really understand the problem with capitalism.
One mistake made in the late USSR was that the public did not take the propaganda seriously.
There were economic problems, yet reports spoke of incredible achievements in socialist construction; in reality, everything was stagnating. The leaders could barely articulate their words... Brezhnev’s final speeches were completely unintelligible; people laughed at him back then just as they laughed at Biden when he rambled. The party leadership had become ossified; the country definitely needed a breath of fresh air at that time. That was precisely what Andropov envisioned when he tasked Ryzhkov and Gorbachev—who were the "young guard" of the party back then, full of fresh thoughts and ideas—with developing the project.
Unfortunately, however, Andropov didn't live long enough to see it through, and Gorbachev later ruined everything.
By the way, I’ve finally fully grasped the reason why Europe was, until recently, a Garden of Eden.
The EU project—conceived long before the USSR collapsed—was aimed at preventing the emergence of socialism in individual European states. To achieve this, capitalists were forced to spend vast sums out of their own pockets to ensure social well-being for all their citizens. After all, there were very strong socialist movements in France, Italy, and elsewhere at the time. If the people had been living in hardship, they would have elected socialists. Consequently, capitalists were compelled to share with the public—as should happen in a genuine democratic capitalist state.
After the USSR collapsed, there was no longer a need to maintain a high standard of living for the European populace. And so, almost without realizing it, Europe began to slide into the abyss! Capitalists now have a free hand; they can do whatever they please.
And now we come to the main point. It turns out that the collapse of the USSR turned Europe into a garbage dump.
Not just in schools too, it’s in TV shows, comic books, everything. And we see now just how effective this type of indoctrination is.
This is a caricature from a Soviet newspaper from 1955. Absolutely nothing has changed.
And yeah, that’s fair, I meant specifically in terms of media entertainment.
Yes, it was done intentionally to give the child more time for beneficial activities. It was the right approach for the upbringing of young people.
This is, incidentally, another thing you can’t do in the west.
I remember once being in the countryside with my parents, but I had a soccer match on Sunday morning, so I headed back to town in the evening to be ready for the game the next day. My parents stayed behind in the village. When I arrived in town, I realized I had left my apartment keys back in the village—but I had taken the last bus of the day. It was a 15-kilometer trip, and I was only 13 years old. I lived on the edge of town, so I walked out to the main road—it was 10 p.m.—and managed to catch a ride. Strangers drove me all the way back to the village; even though it wasn't on their way, they dropped me right at my house and wouldn't take a single penny. I had a few rubles in my pocket and tried to offer them the money, but they flatly refused.
It never even crossed my mind that someone might try to harm me. And my parents didn't scold me for coming back to the village in the middle of the night instead of staying over at a friend's place in town—to them, that sort of thing was perfectly normal.
Even now—before the war—I don’t recall any instances of anyone being abducted; children roam the streets freely. But that’s before the war; I don’t know what will happen afterwards—the world has changed.
We talked about this before, lack of a good selection process that allowed people of low competence to get into positions of power and created a bureaucracy which was largely concerned with preserving itself rather than solving problems was the ultimate cause of the decline. Simply telling people everything is great while you're unable to produce substantive change they can see tangibly deligitimizes the system. And that's precisely what we see happening in the west today, and why there's now public disillusionment with liberal democracy.
And you're absolutely right that Europe has been propped up to prevent genuine socialism from taking hold. The US didn't pour billions upon billions into rebuilding western Europe after WW2 out of sheer altruism. They used it as a way to deligitimize communism in the east. Look how great Europeans are living, look how much faster things develop under capitalism. That was the whole narrative. This is a great read on the subject incidentally, confirms everything you said http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/046.html
This is a caricature from a Soviet newspaper from 1955. Absolutely nothing has changed.
Yup, that cartoon is ever green, and just as true as the day it was made.
It never even crossed my mind that someone might try to harm me.
Exactly, there were just not thoughts people had back in USSR. It's destruction was the biggest crime of the 20th century.
We talked about this before, lack of a good selection process that allowed people of low competence to get into positions of power and created a bureaucracy which was largely concerned with preserving itself rather than solving problems was the ultimate cause of the decline.
For some reason, I am convinced that Stalin would have sorted the situation out in a couple of years—it would have become 1937 all over again. Of course, for a long time afterward, people would have talked about how cruel Stalin was...
In essence, the situation in 1987 was the same as in 1937, when the Trotskyists crawled out into the open. And Trotskyists are essentially the same as kulaks and petty property owners.
By the way, I’d like to challenge your point about whether, according to Marx, a transition from feudalism to socialism is possible while bypassing the "agonies of capitalism."
Yes, in his letter to Vera Zasulich dated March 8, 1881, Karl Marx did indeed allow for the possibility that Russia could transition to socialism by relying on its pre-capitalist institutions, thereby bypassing the capitalist stage.
Marx analyzed the socio-economic situation and concluded that the Russian rural commune (specifically the land-holding commune) could serve as a foothold for social renewal.
https://revarchiv.narod.ru/marxeng/tom19/marx_zasulitch.html
Therefore, Stalin acted precisely in accordance with Stalin's own theory—the NEP in Russia could have been dispensed with! Both Marx and Stalin turned out to be right.
I wonder what Marx would have said about the possibility of building socialism in China. Although I’d probably agree with you: China lacked the necessary foundation to skip over the NEP stage.
China was incredibly backward after the Opium Wars.
Look how great Europeans are living, look how much faster things develop under capitalism.
Trump has finally stirred into action, wanting to make America the way it was 40 years ago, but it is already too late. While Europe and the US were fleecing their own people and dismantling their industries, China was building. We see the result: there is no turning back.
Yup, that cartoon is ever green, and just as true as the day it was made.
Back then, they were just pictures to me; I didn't take them seriously. But when events started unfolding in Ukraine... can you imagine? I immediately remembered those cartoons—and the scales fell from my eyes.
Exactly, there were just not thoughts people had back in USSR. It’s destruction was the biggest crime of the 20th century.
It’s all down to modern capitalist culture—a lifestyle where everyone is chasing profits and all sorts of sordid amusements. Drugs have also had a massive impact; they’ve poisoned all of Europe and the US. Wherever there are drugs, there is perversion. That’s exactly where that flood of "jolly guys" came from—the ones whose rights I’m suddenly supposed to care about. It’s all the drugs, I assure you!
You know yourself that the whole high-society crowd is hooked on cocaine. It’s very fashionable among them.
I think Stalin was largely correct in what he did, the problem was that he left a system which failed to ensure strong leadership going forward. A stable social system can't depend on a single strong willed individual being in charge and making the right calls. Continuity of competent governance, especially in time of plenty is the hardest problem to solve in my opinion.
And completely agree, China quietly outplayed the west. A lot of it was inherent in western hubris too. They really thought that theirs was the only way to develop, and they figured that China would have to become like them eventually and they'd fold it in. But it didn't work out that way. Turns out people with 3000 years of continuous civilization under their belt know a thing or two of their won. Also, don't know if you saw, but American media has now realized DPRK is doing rather well. https://archive.ph/b9zrS
The west really is starting to look like the final days of the Roman empire now. I expect we'll start seeing provinces getting cut loose next and imploding economically. The UK looks like it might be the first to pop.
oh and just ran across this https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202605/19/WS6a0c0718a310d6866eb4976d.html
That American professor said that lately, a great many supporters of socialism have been emerging—among young people in the US and elsewhere. But this isn't because they are committed socialists; rather, they are protesting against capitalism, and since there is no alternative to socialism, and people want change...
It's a result of changing material conditions. People see they have no future within the system.
I spoke about this earlier.
I agree with Mearsheimer, the strike on Kiev doesn't really mean anything at this point. There will have to be sustained escalation now.
To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers... It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip... ))) "The truth is out there"—just like in The X-Files... )))
Mind you, I don't mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus... complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika... reeking of stale vodka.
Please, don't judge me too harshly! )))
Why was that guy removed?
It doesn't seem like he said anything outrageous.
This is not a very usable understanding. How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Material interests aren't as simple as "workers for workers, owners for owners," it describes the intersecting and even contradictory ways in which people navigate this system to achieve or maintain their own level of material security. Similarly, the kind of class analysis you just described is bereft of any explanations for how race, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, or ability intersect in class dynamics; there is a reason we don't do it this way.
Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie.
whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Private property in the socialist context doesn't refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with "absentee property".
There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization).
How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point.
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
and anarchist scholarship
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
"György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine."
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist
I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor.
Lenin and not Lukács
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action **
Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?"
Am I understanding you correctly?
Wouldn't a home be personal property, not private? 401ks might be a better example?
This is my first time engaging with this community (I think) and it is surprising to see comments like this. Home-ownership was used here because it references real, commodified material resources (land, shelter, etc.) which is only able to be owned by someone through specific social and property relations. While a 401k might be another example of private (I'm not sure what distinction you're referencing, but it certainly isn't materialist) property, as in a material thing that individuals claim exclusive access to, its dependency on financialization and abstraction from material value makes it a bad example for how property ownership specifically functions in relation to material resources and social/political systems.
haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right?
It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.
"True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in.
I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.
As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.
And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to... $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.
Places where the oligarchs' massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.
Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!
I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background.
However, calling whatever the soviets did “true socialism”
Here, again, is a small caveat: we are not discussing the process—but rather the result—of building developed socialism. And we aren't even considering the economic aspect here. The USSR faced immense difficulties back then, particularly when the U.S. sought to drain its resources using various hoaxes—the Moon landing, and other such nonsense. Incidentally—in case you weren't aware—it turned out that the U.S. actually lacked the rockets needed to fly into space; once the Space Shuttle program failed, they were forced to pay $80 million per astronaut for transport provided by Russia to the ISS. And it begs the question: what on earth happened to the Apollo program? The ISS is only 400 kilometers away, yet the Moon is 400,000...
But I digress. That was the USSR's path toward socialism—a path that was incredibly thorny and arduous. Whether before World War II or after it, the USSR was under siege from all sides.
Be that as it may, socialism was successfully built in the USSR—in what amounted to its roughly final form. It may have lacked glitz and glamour, but it was, undeniably, socialism.
As for the Cubans, Koreans, and Vietnamese—their situation is far more challenging, as their nations lack the self-sufficiency that the USSR possessed. The USSR had the industrial capacity, the natural resources—everything required to withstand isolation and continue forging ahead. However, in light of recent events—specifically the ongoing realignment of the global order—these nations now appear to hold immense promise for future development. But building developed socialism requires a lot of money.
China, for its part, built its brand of socialism using Western capital. It constructed a form of socialism that suited the West's interests... at least until very recently, that is. China proved to be far more complex than the West had anticipated—and ultimately outmaneuvered the West! Yet, fundamentally, that does not alter the nature of the matter.
My hope is that China will, in the end, achieve its true objective. As things stand, what currently exists there doesn't quite measure up... I’m not sure if one can accurately apply the term you placed in quotation marks to it—so I won't venture to say.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax.
I recognize the American socialist in you... )))
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years...
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
That sounds very sweet... )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don't you understand me?
These aren't my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don't believe what I'm saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists.
I am an empiricist.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
"I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc."
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because... well, simply because... When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn't the second-largest economy in the world...
What do you have to say to that?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because…
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
And don't get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: "Moscow Never Sleeps." Do you think that’s just because people there don't feel like sleeping? ...))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Okay, let's make it 12—is that alright?)))
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?)))
No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative.
some European’s work 3 jobs
Now let's go back to my very first post addressed to you—perhaps now you will understand what I meant back then.
And I will answer you... using your very own words, literally:
We are not talking about capitalism right now, but about socialism!
Verstehst?
No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not.
No you still do not understand please reread what I’m saying.
Some Russians work 16 hours
Did people in the USSR work 16-hour days?
I’ll go even further: officially, holding two jobs in the USSR was prohibited by law.
Your fantasy
As you wish.
Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again.
You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal)
This is not true
You then said it was 12 hours
Again this is not true
While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours.
In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement.
Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?
If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better.
Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta
Just chalk it up to the fact that I live in a combat zone. It’s easier that way, comrade!
Everything is absolutely driving me up the wall right now... and those two in the photo—they’re driving me crazy, too! Exploiters and soulless bastards! Just think about it: Marx must have turned in his grave when he saw that pair in the photo—a communist-oligarch and a ghoul who sold his soul to the devil. Lenin probably bolted out of the Mausoleum and ran to the pharmacy to get some sedatives... ))))
Sorry, comrade—I mean you no harm... and I wish China nothing but prosperity and a peaceful sky overhead!
You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal)"
That’s just a figure of speech meant to illustrate that Chinese people work a lot of overtime. I don't know exactly how many hours the Chinese work—sorry about that. But I do know for a fact that they work overtime. You can see this in the Russian Far East, where they work like robots—day and night. The locals are absolutely shocked by their productivity. I’m telling you this as a matter of fact, though I don't know exactly how many hours a day one would need to work to achieve that level of output—Russians certainly aren't capable of working like that.
While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say “Chinese people work 12 hours a day” as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours.
In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement.
Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I’m trying to say now?
Товарищ, let's put an end to this conversation, please. It's going nowhere!
I apologize once again; I meant you no harm—nothing but good. Peace be upon your home!
Regarding my fantasies
"Furthermore, Ma added that those wishing to join Alibaba must be prepared from the outset to work 12 hours a day."
A member of the CPC and a leading Party official—Jack Ma. To be honest, I listened to him back in 2019, and my jaw dropped at the time.
He was in Kyiv once; I saw him speak.
leading Party official
Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you.
Yea, shit like this and saying the Statesian moon landing was fake are seriously damaging the appearance of sincerity.
I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions.
Yep. I think a good deal of the problem is the language barrier, but it's unfortunate that it seems to be an unfortunate mixture of nostalgia with the jealousy of seeing socialism still being built in China while in Russia it's a (for now) bygone era.
Comrade, you have to understand that this might have been hyperbole.
He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. And I heard him speak when he was in Kyiv. He addressed Ukrainian youth and lectured them on how one ought to live.
He spoke about himself, claiming that he never takes a break—that even during his morning run or in the shower, he is constantly thinking about work. He even said that while sleeping, he wakes up with ideas and jots things down in a notebook.
He urged the Ukrainian youth to be just like him.
It is the truth; I am not twisting anything.
He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him.
If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak.
If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power.
The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China.
Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected.
If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak.
Jack Ma, male, Han Chinese, member of the Communist Party of China, born September 1964 in Shengzhou, Zhejiang Province, is the chairman of the board of directors of Alibaba Group (China) Co., Ltd.
...He has been awarded the title of "Outstanding Builder of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in Zhejiang Province."
http://cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2018/1126/c419242-30420351.html
Comrade, what kind of investigations are there? Don't you know how the oligarchs make their billions?
They make their money by oppressing the proletariat.
For example, he forces his workers to work overtime for the same wages. He doesn't pay compensation for overtime. He's not ashamed of it.
Look on YouTube to see the conditions the workers at his factories live in.
I'm not talking about all of China now; I'm talking specifically about the oligarch Jack Ma, who is a member of the CPC and who received an award "for outstanding services in building socialism."
Comrade, please don't be offended by me; I'm dealing exclusively with facts, not speculation.
Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power.
Yes, oligarchs are all parasites—you're right.
Their money is money stolen from the people. And it doesn't really matter whether they're in the Communist Party or not, because they're parasites a priori!
The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China.
It's encouraging that work is actually being done in China. This gives hope for the best....
But until the oligarchs are exterminated as a class in China, they will continue to strangle the people!
oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few".
They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power.
oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country’s government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to “rule by the few”.
Yes, I agree with you about the term "oligarch." I never mentioned Ma's influence on the state, though; I talked about the workers and how Ma made his billions.
And I don't know about China, but in the USSR, all party workers were a priori involved in government activities.
I suppose China also has "party meetings" at various levels, where party workers make key decisions by voting. At these meetings, such a distinguished and distinguished figure surely enjoys considerable authority. Or am I mistaken?
They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power.
Yeah, I've heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US.
Or am I mistaken?
Yes
Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US.
Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example.
Yes, I agree with you. But that doesn't change the essence of Ma and the others.
It does. Ma and other capitalists having no political power is absolutely a change in essence of their position
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that.
By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.
I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
At first, I thought that philosophy was different in the West, too... )))
Comrade, just for you, I asked Google—in English.
Do these explanations satisfy you?
Or do you think that "Empiricism focuses on gathering evidence and facts through sensory experience and observation" could negatively affect my socialist convictions?
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day.
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China—that would represent the opinion of a genuine modern-day Russian communist.
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me otherwise, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China. That would represent the opinion of a genuine, modern-day Russian communist.
His username is Dessalines.
Comrade, I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about China right now; my American comrades and I spent weeks arguing about this very subject over on Reddit.
We debated everything—what their typical workday looks like, the fact that they sleep on the job, and how much a street sweeper in Shanghai actually earns.
What you're telling me is merely the window dressing. It’s just the official data.
This, however, is the unofficial reality:
https://dvobozrenie.ru/news/protesty-v-komsomolske-na-amure/
And mind you, it wasn't Russians who failed to pay the Chinese workers; it was a Chinese company that withheld wages from its own employees. The workers actually appealed directly to Putin, asking him to help them extract the money from the "socialist" owner of the enterprise—who had fled back to China and left his workers completely stranded.
Do you know exactly how many hours a day Chinese workers actually put in over there? I know for a fact! And that alone is enough for me to grasp the true nature of what’s happening in China; as for what gets written in the official reports—well, that’s nothing more than graffiti on a wall in a Brooklyn ghetto!
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism
No, I am not advocating for a utopia; I am asserting that the kind of socialism that existed in the USSR is simply impossible to build anywhere today!
This is not a utopia—it is bitter regret and frustration! How I hate that bastard, branded on the forehead with the mark of the devil.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union?
Better yet, please tell me, Comrade: what is the difference between a worker in Shanghai and a worker in Moscow right now?
I’ll tell you upfront: a street cleaner in Moscow earns more. Furthermore, a street cleaner in Moscow receives free housing—modest, perhaps, but housing nonetheless.
That is what I consider utopian—not the USSR!
Regarding empiricism, I already explained that I interpreted your comment identifying yourself as an empiricist to be a declaration against dialectical materialism, and towards metaphysical materialism. After you explainend that you did not mean that, I better understood you. Again, Lenin wrote the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism against vulgar empiricism, but empiricism itself as a method of observation combined with dialectical materialism is not a bad thing. That's why I chalk it up to language difference.
As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours. This is unacceptable for a socialist to use as ammo against a socialist state, and is plainly disappointing to see. I have hope in Russian communists to eventually bring a return of socialism to Eastern Europe, but seeing this kind of behavior is disappointing, and I'm glad it isn't an official party statement.
As for the USSR, I was not calling it Utopian. I was specifically calling you a Utopian for your focus on "model-building." The USSR was no utopia, it was a real socialist state, just like China is today. What I was calling Utopian was your definition of socialism as "whatever the Soviets did," ie by measuring how socialist a country is by how closely it follows the Soviet example. The Soviet system was the socialist system suited to Eastern Europe in the conditions of the 20th century, it is not a permanent model to be emulated and perpetuated but was a living and evolving system.
When I speak of Utopianism, I mean the type of socialist such as Robert Owen and Saint Simon, the pre-Marxist socialists Engels countered in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that's not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication.
As for the difference between Chinese and Russian workers, Chinese workers control the state and thus direct the social surplus of society towards pro-social ends. The commanding heights of industry are publicly owned in China. Again, China is closer to a more complex and developed NEP than the modern Russian economy. Socialism is not simply "having social programs," otherwise the Nordics would be socialist. Instead, the class character of the state and the principal aspect of the economy are critical.
Regarding empiricism, I already explained that I interpreted your comment identifying yourself as an empiricist to be a declaration against dialectical materialism, and towards metaphysical materialism. After you explainend that you did not mean that, I better understood you. Again, Lenin wrote the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism against vulgar empiricism, but empiricism itself as a method of observation combined with dialectical materialism is not a bad thing. That’s why I chalk it up to language difference.
I had to delve deeper into the subject to understand where our disagreements lay.
I found the reason:
Empiricism is a classical doctrine that considers** sensory experience** to be the primary source of all knowledge. Empiriocriticism is its narrow, modernized version (the second positivism of the turn of the 20th century), which attempted to "purify" experience of concepts like matter and objective reality, reducing it to a pure complex of subjective sensations.
I was talking about the classical, fundamental school of philosophy, not its narrow, modernized part.
And I maintain that I am an empiricist not just for the sake of it, but because it is my credo, my insight.
I may doubt or disagree with some of it, but the basics are quite satisfactory to me.
And I'm not talking about socialism or Lenin now—this process is happening in parallel.
Vladimir Lenin viewed experience through the prism of Marxist epistemology. He defined experience as** sensory perceptions**, historical memory, and social practice, which serve as the primary criterion for the truth of any knowledge.
"As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours."
Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm talking about workers and peasants and their rights.
No, that's not the only reason.
I wouldn't continue this conversation, Comrade.
I know how sensitive this is for Western socialists, and I don't want to spoil their mood, because I have nothing against them.
The fact is that opinion in the West and opinion among communists in Russia differ sharply on this issue.
"I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that’s not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication."
In short, you keep telling me that building socialism like the USSR in today's reality is utopian.
I respond that I yearn for a lost paradise, because such a thing will never exist again.
Comrade, aren't these the same thing?
I understand perfectly well that you can't build something like that in China now.
I understand that you're telling me that conditions are different in China; just wait a bit, everything will happen naturally, as Marx intended, but it will be a different path, unlike the USSR's. We just need to wait about 50 years.
Did I understand you correctly this time?
direct the social surplus of society towards pro-social ends.
In the USSR, this was called Zakroma Rodiny (Motherland's Granary), a very familiar terminology.
Is the Pension Fund an insignificant goal?
Why don't Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go?
Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go?
To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation.
Comrade, I also read the newspaper "Pravda" as a child, and everything seemed so good and smooth there, but in reality, things don't always work out that way.
What can I say about this: I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village and interviewed local residents, visiting their homes. What can I say: as far as everyday life goes, Russian peasants live a little better, except that Chinese peasants have too many electronics, while Russian city dwellers probably don't have that much in their homes. ))) Everything seems fine there—they live and work. The blogger also interviewed an elderly woman (about 70 years old). She also had no complaints, except that they only paid pensions to those who worked for a state enterprise or to those who had earned their stripes before the Party. The blogger asked what they should do then? She replied: if they have relatives, they help; if not, they have to work themselves.
I see the decree was passed in 2014... it hasn't been fully implemented yet. It's been taking a while.
I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village
Comrade anecdotes are not worth much
Comrade anecdotes are not worth much
Are you telling me there wasn't a real Chinese peasant woman there?
If you think I'm feeding you speculation right now, then we should probably stop talking.
You, a woman, don't receive a pension; in her village, no one receives a pension except for government employees.
"In China, citizens who have not made regular pension contributions for the required period (at least 15 years) do not receive a state old-age pension.
These categories include: Rural residents without insurance: Elderly people in villages who do not participate in the basic pension insurance system for rural residents."
Is this a joke?
So, it turns out that peasants who lived their lives in poverty, who couldn't afford insurance, are left without a pension in their old age. And they lived in poverty not because they are lazy, but because China has only recently emerged from poverty. These are people who were born under Mao.
I have nothing against the fact that development was difficult in China, just please don’t make fun of me.
Everyone receives a minimum pension but you cannot take the basic pension on top of other pensions.
Comrade I wish I could say you appear intelligent and sincere but it would be a lie in both cases I am afraid to say.
Yes, I checked, the basic pension is 150-200 yuan.
Damn, I couldn't find that video, but I swear to you that old Chinese woman said exactly what I told you, and no matter how stupid or smart I am, it doesn't change anything. That was a real village, and real peasants. I don't know why she lied back then. I could be wrong, of course.
And I'll clarify that the minimum pension in Ukraine is 450 yuan, converted. That's a paltry sum, you can't live on it.
Sorry for upsetting you so much, better blame it on my stupidity.
Can you turn on subtitles in YouTube's settings? If so, tell me if this is true or not.
Please forgive me in advance if I'm wrong.
your source is youtube; think on that.
I show you YouTube, you show me the Chinese newspaper Pravda. It seems to me that the information is equivalent... )))
Seriously, please don't take me for an idiot who peddles fake news.
I didn't ask you, Comrade, to point out my sources. I showed you a video where a Russian guy studying and living in Harbin talks about how the Chinese pension system works, as explained to him by his Chinese university professor. And I asked you to tell me whether it's true or not.
Please search what anecdote means before getting offended or assuming what it means
Anecdotal evidence is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations, collected in a non-systematic manner.
Russian interpretation
I translated
"Anekdot is a genre of urban folklore: a short, funny, and self-contained story. It usually builds on an unexpected and witty punchline at the very end, poking fun at human foibles, stereotypes, or current events."
Yes, I misunderstood you.
In fact, YouTube is teeming with these videos about China, but they're mostly positive.
But I just don't believe it when everything is good, so I look for the catch.
You can find anything in Russia. St. Petersburg and Moscow are just a showcase; go beyond the Urals and you'll feel sad. It's a region with incredible natural gas deposits, and some megacities rely on wood fires for heating.
I'm not even talking about the villages there.
I met a Chinese guy on Reddit, but he lives in the US. His father fled Mao's Cultural Revolution at the time. He probably has relatives in China and knows about it.
But at least he believes at least some of my jokes. I've been communicating with him for a year and a half now.
basic pension is 150-200 yuan.
Wrong that's the national floor that is legally required but each local government adds their own contributions on top of this for example if you fall under the Shanghai local government you would receive 1500 per month as your basic pension.
That was a real village, and real peasants.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was an anecdote.
Ukraine is 450 yuan, converted. That’s a paltry sum, you can’t live on it.
Good thing cost of living in Chinese rural villages is tiny. In most especially the most rural ones you could likely get by on 50rmb a month especially with the community help that comes with village life.
Shanghai local government you would receive 1500 per month as your basic pension.
Yes, that video talked about that. We're talking about the provinces, not Shanghai.
That old Chinese woman who lied about not receiving a pension was from a remote province.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said it was an anecdote.
Personally, I don't find it funny.
get by on 50rmb
Can you imagine the gap between the city and the village?
especially with the community help that comes with village life.
As a child, my parents took me to my grandmother's village for the summer holidays. It was a collective farm. I observed how the collective farmers lived.
You could survive without a salary; everyone had their own garden and livestock or poultry. I know what that's like.
Personally, I don’t find it funny.
Please look up what anecdote/anecdotal evidence means
You could survive without a salary; everyone had their own garden and livestock or poultry. I know what that’s like.
And I am from a rural Chinese village so I know even better than you.
Can you imagine the gap between the city and the village?
Thoughts of someone who hasn't studied theory or China. Cities obviously develop faster than rural areas.
If only you could have seen mine and our neighbouring villages even 15 years ago not to mind 20 30 50 years ago compared to today. You wouldn't be spreading all of this bullshit about rural people not seeing any benefits
Thoughts of someone who hasn’t studied theory or China.
As someone who doesn't study theory, I think Chiang Kai-shek built Shanghai according to the Western model, with Western money. How much longer will you continue to build and develop it?
what anecdote/anecdotal evidence means
Google translates it as a joke.
Cities obviously develop faster than rural areas.
If you're talking about urbanization, I know. In 1930, peasants made up 80% of the USSR's population. The same situation was in China. What development are you talking about? If a city is developing, then peasants need to be resettled from the villages to the city so they can become workers.
A city can't develop without people.
But you can't resettle everyone; some will stay.
If only you could have seen mine and our neighbouring villages
Yes, that's right, that video said that the rich regions are doing well, I didn't argue with you about that.
You wouldn’t be spreading all of this bullshit about rural people not seeing any benefits
If you hadn't spoken so harshly to me, I probably would have kept quiet, Comrade.
OK. You're from Shanghai or thereabouts. Please tell me, how much does a Chinese peasant who came to Shanghai without a residence permit earn per month?
How much does a janitor in Shanghai, who is a Chinese peasant, earn?
I'd be happy to believe you, but I once spoke with a resident of St. Petersburg who has no idea how people live beyond the Urals. When it comes to national pride, people try to hide their shortcomings, especially if you're a staunch Chinese communist. The USSR also hid a lot, even from its own citizens. So your information isn't objective to me, sorry, Comrade.
that video said that the rich regions are doing well,
I am not from a rich region 🤣
You’re from Shanghai or thereabouts
Not at all
If you hadn’t spoken so harshly to me, I probably would have kept quiet
And if you hadn't been spreading bullshit I wouldn't have felt the need to speak harshly. It would have been best if you had kept quiet instead of speaking nonsense.
Comrade I think we should leave this here. Maybe we can talk again when you decide to educate yourself before speaking.
And if you hadn’t been spreading bullshit I wouldn’t have felt the need to speak harshly.
The thing is, I've heard this from a Chinese person many times on Reddit, and not only from a Chinese person. For some reason, I continue to act like an idiot.
And I don't really like it, Comrade, that you sometimes don't answer questions.
A janitor's salary in Shanghai is $80-$100 per month. A Chinese farmer/worker without a residence permit in Shanghai earns $200-$400.
Please correct me.
Maybe we can talk again when you decide to educate yourself before speaking.
As you wish
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem.
As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.
For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate.
China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
"Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism."
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a "Russian fatalist" instead, that would be more correct... )))
I'm not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don't want to seem toxic.
"“true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism."
You're so hung up on that word, Comrade.... Can't I express myself figuratively?... )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce... But that's putting it mildly, Comrade!
"Whoever doesn't regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain."
V.V. Putin
"As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people."
How much longer, Comrade? They've been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I'm reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he's writing... literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month... I read this, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God's help... let's say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?... ))) It's Rockefeller.
Don't you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn't have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so
I sincerely apologize! I didn't know it would offend you! I'm serious.
But, frankly, I'm very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn't have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists "Comrade." I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some... socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Once again, I'm sorry, I won't call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don't believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it's already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union's conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia's ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union's models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia's conditions are not the same as the USSR's.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China's case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for "western Marxism," in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world.
You know I disagree... )))
What's wrong with Stalin's industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don't you think Mao's thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin's "Great Leap Forward" is much more impressive than the "Great Leap Forward"... I'll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959) Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968) Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975) From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988) Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993) Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003) Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013) Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
"snake Khrushchev"
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn't that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin's artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev's second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can't shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called "Khrushchev-era buildings," began.
So what if they made a deal with the western devil?
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
The soviets did so too during the NEP
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn't have capitalism at that time, just like China didn't. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy. But Stalin, at some point, said "Stop!" And he didn't do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don't forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more.
I've described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
"Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country."
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
The team is small, 10 people...
As for “western Marxism
I didn't know this, I said the phrase on my own.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
One does not seek good when one already has it.
I am referring to Stalin’s decision to abolish the NEP, viewing it as a poison for a socialist society.
When the NEP first emerged, the common people were starving—literally swelling up from hunger—while the "NEPmen" sat in restaurants, feasting on black caviar and washing it down with Abrau-Durso champagne.
The people loathed the NEPmen; they regarded them as a hostile class.
Do you understand that the NEP represents an abyss between private enterprise and the people—both in a social and a material sense? As a temporary measure, the NEP is, of course, necessary in certain specific situations; however, if allowed to drag on, things can go so far that there is simply no turning back.
That Platoskin fellow I mentioned yesterday—well, in the wake of Putin’s crackdown, he’s had a change of heart about staging a revolution... ))) Now he wants to do everything legally, through the electoral process. Furthermore, under his proposed model of socialism, he intends to retain private business ownership. It would certainly be fascinating to see how he manages to pull that off...
"Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth."
A real roller coaster... )))
It seems to me that the biggest disaster was when Mao had all the sparrows killed off.
In case you didn't know—and whatever a snake Khrushchev might have been—he actually sent trainloads of sparrows to China once Mao realized that he had been a bit too hasty in getting rid of them.
Mao wanted war constantly. He was forever pushing the countries of the Socialist Bloc toward it. Castro and Czechoslovakia were the most outraged by this. Mao was extremely belligerent; he was constantly provoking the USSR.
It was strange to observe: on one hand, there was the practically boundless aid being provided to China, yet on the other—manifestations of outright hostility.
In the USSR during the 1970s, China was portrayed in a rather unfavorable light on television—specifically in the wake of the Damansky Island conflict and other events. Brezhnev feared that China might launch a nuclear strike. All forces were placed on combat alert, and troops were massed along the borders. Thank God, the situation was ultimately resolved peacefully. It was at Damansky Island that the BM-21 "Grad" multiple rocket launch systems were deployed for the first time—a move that, in fact, played the decisive role.
And take a look at the graph: leading up to the Damansky Island incident, China was at its peak; immediately afterward, however, it went into a sharp nosedive.
"they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought."
Everything produced in the 1930s and thereafter was a copy of Western designs. Why bother developing original technology? They simply bought the product in the West and copied it.
Incidentally, there is a story relevant to this point: Khrushchev once went to Sweden on a state visit, where he saw an electric shaver for the first time—and was presented with one as a gift. He was utterly astonished and took a real liking to it. As soon as he returned to the USSR, he ordered that an identical one be manufactured—only domestically produced. His staff asked him, "How?" He replied, "However you see fit!"
The engineers dismantled the device down to the last screw, copied it, and thus the first electric shaver in the USSR was born at the FED factory. This factory holds a special place in my heart; it adjoins the aircraft plant where my mother used to work.
FED is an acronym standing for Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.
Now, regarding "socialism with a Russian twist": on one occasion, Lenin ordered Dzerzhinsky to put an end to the problem of homelessness among children. Dzerzhinsky was a monumental figure; he was entrusted with the most complex and daunting tasks (Beria, in essence, was much the same).
Dzerzhinsky traveled to Kharkiv, rounded up all the homeless children... took them out to a ravine, and had them shot! ...)))) That’s just a joke, of course...
In reality, the first labor colony for homeless children in the USSR was established. A precision electronics factory was built on the grounds of this colony, where the homeless children both worked and studied. Ultimately, the people who emerged from that institution went on to become scientists and cosmonauts... Since then, the factory has borne the name FED—though it has now been bombed by the Russians. However, had the Ukrainians realized what the acronym FED actually stood for, they would have renamed the factory long ago...))))
As for the goods that were supposedly meant to "displace" Western products in the global market: under socialism, there is no such thing as competition—there is only "socialist emulation." Goods manufactured in the USSR could be seen en masse throughout the countries of the Socialist Bloc. They should have first ensured they had everything they needed themselves—so that, perhaps, they could compete later on.
I do not care for the “soul”
That is what sets you apart from a Russian. It sounds stupid, but it’s true.
His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
Note that in both the first and the second case, it all began with contact with the United States. Leprosy—if one may put it that way.
Note that in both the first and second instances, it all began with contact with the United States—a sort of leprosy, if you will.
Those reforms were dictated by the West—roughly speaking. The U.S. led both men by the nose... and subsequently began leading Putin by the nose as well. Sooner or later, this had to come to an end—yet it hasn't. Now we have the "Spirit of Anchorage" all over again; it is truly laughable to watch.
The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas.
As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced.
I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's.
Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing.
All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.
Khrushchev’s venom was correctly called out by Mao.
Like you, I also detest Khrushchev; however, as far as China is concerned, Khrushchev did nothing detrimental—in fact, he continued Stalin's foreign policy course regarding that country.
And here is something that might surprise you: Stalin and Mao never actually shared a warm relationship. Stalin used to refer to Mao as a "radish"—red on the outside (a communist), but white on the inside (a capitalist).
but there’s good reason why Khrushchev’s actions enabled Gorbachev’s, which enabled Yeltsin’s.
Yes, I completely agree with you here. Stalin's death was the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world’s factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further.
Once again, Comrade: The factories where this "copying" took place were built using Western capital. The Western owners were undoubtedly keen to ensure those factories generated a profit, so they dispatched their own specialists to help their Chinese comrades master the technologies more quickly; equipment and machinery were provided as well.
There is no miracle here, Comrade. I played football as a child, and back then, the Germans built an Adidas factory in Moscow. I used to buy Moscow-made Adidas boots; they were indistinguishable from the originals—except that they cost several times less.
Just imagine: if there had been thousands of such factories—as there are in China—what would have happened then? Moscow-made Adidas would have completely displaced German Adidas. Does that not remind you of anything?
The only catch is that, in the USSR, you could count the number of Western-built factories on the fingers of one hand...
As for the idea of simply copying something without developing it further... Have you heard about the Korean War, where American pilots suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Soviet airmen? The ratio was something like one to ten—I don't recall the exact figures.
The whole secret lies in the fact that the aircraft flown by the Soviet pilots were copies of American designs—except that, in their version, the Russians altered the wing angle. And the Russians won.
All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be.
Comrade, I feel a certain sense of embarrassment before you. This is the first time I have ever heard an American speak like this.
I am pleased to hear that. When I detect a certain note of regret... I truly hope it is sincere!
What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.
You can see that a cornered beast will fight to the bitter end! A cornered beast is capable of anything!
Comrade, it is one thing to merely observe, but quite another to be right in the epicenter. I am watching Russia—quite literally—through a pair of naval binoculars.
If I were to set up a drum, grab a spyglass, put on a tricorn hat, and perch myself on that drum—well, I could easily pass for Napoleon... )))
For those of us here, all these death throes... they reverberate back to us later with excruciating pain. Just now, Ukraine struck a dormitory; many teenagers were killed. And the retaliation will come flying back—right down onto our heads...
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China’s Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west.
I understand everything you’re saying, but that’s not what I’m getting at. If the USSR had received the same level of Western investment back then—the kind that was poured into China—it wouldn’t have been any worse off; in fact, to be more precise, the USSR would have absolutely skyrocketed.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America.
I am more concerned about European globalists right now—because I am not from Iran, but from Kharkiv.
And those scumbags are constantly provoking... harder and harder.
One could say that the reason the Soviets could not get the same western investment is because of the differences between the soviet system and the Chinese system. This is why it's best not to look at socialism like a static formula, but a science with options and tradeoffs. China's decision came with good and bad, the soviet decision came with good and bad, the correct decision is only truly identifiable in hindsight.
One could say that the reason the Soviets could not get the same western investment is because of the differences between the soviet system and the Chinese system.
Specifically for our conversation, I would like to briefly introduce you—in outline form—to the contents of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov’s book, The Flip Side of NEP (Обратная Сторона НЭПа):
Crisis Phenomena: According to the researcher, the partial return to market mechanisms did not lead to the long-awaited economic boom; instead, it triggered a protracted economic crisis.
Political Struggle: The transition to the NEP (New Economic Policy) exacerbated latent conflicts within the USSR’s party elite (during the 1923–1925 period), resulting in a fierce struggle for power.
Social Stratification: Economic liberalization led to the rapid enrichment of a narrow social stratum—the "NEPmen"—a situation that stood in stark contrast to the dire plight of the majority of workers and peasants.
As you can see, there exists a radically different perspective on the events of that era. Zhukov is an archivist; his work relies primarily on archival documents. In his books, every claim is substantiated by the figures and statistical indicators of those years, which form the core of the economic analysis within his work. The political struggle is evidenced in the minutes of party meetings, while social stratification is clearly visible in criminal police reports. One such report, for instance, describes the formation of a student gang in Moscow that specialized in robbing NEPmen. A great number of such motley gangs sprang up, triggering a rampant surge in crime.
Indeed, we know that between 1919 and 1921, "War Communism" was implemented at the behest of Trotsky. Both Trotsky and Lenin indulged in fantasies of a global revolution; they fully expected that a wave of socialist revolutions would erupt across Europe at any moment, and that the Red Army would immediately rush to their aid. Consequently, the army was effectively transformed into a "labor army."
It was a truly terrible time for the workers and peasants. Soldiers were not demobilized from the army; instead, they remained under barracks conditions, working in factories and receiving no wages—only food and clothing. Yet, even these basic necessities the state was unable to provide in sufficient quantities. As the situation deteriorated, unrest and strikes began to erupt in the factories; workers refused to work. Measures had to be taken. To breathe some fresh life into the economy, War Communism was abolished and the NEP was introduced; however, as it turned out, this dawn was short-lived. As for the notion that the NEP was actually effective in the USSR—that was a myth later inflated by Gorbachev in order to push through his own hare-brained ideas.
Let's set everything else aside for a moment and focus solely on the construction of socialism via the "Stalinist path." We will take into account all the errors, miscalculations, and successes involved.
How did Stalin attract investment? Stalin sold priceless paintings from the state-owned Hermitage Museum, thereby effectively bribing American officials and tycoons. Capitalizing on the Weimar Republic's diplomatic isolation, he established trade relations with them. Raw materials were shipped to the Weimar Republic, while technology, equipment, machinery, and machine tools flowed back in return. At that time, Germany was a technologically advanced nation. However, problems arose in the 1930s; Hitler rose to power, and relations between the USSR and Germany were severed. Simultaneously, an unprecedented economic crisis struck. Trade relations with Europe and the USA were all but reduced to zero. As always, the peasants ended up bearing the brunt of the consequences. The 1930s were an incredibly difficult period for the peasantry. There were also miscalculations regarding collectivization—specifically, those that followed the failure of the communes. In case you weren't aware, prior to collectivization, there had been communes established in the villages. That particular approach failed miserably, sparking intense resentment among the peasants. Yet Mao—for some inexplicable reason—chose to emphasize communes rather than kolkhozes (collective farms) during his "Great Leap Forward," completely disregarding Stalin's prior experience.
And do not forget that, running parallel to the processes of collectivization and industrialization, a "Cultural Revolution" was taking place within the USSR. And believe me, Comrade: had Mao orchestrated something similar, China would not have suffered from such a dire shortage of agricultural specialists.
After Mao botched the industrialization, collectivization, and "Cultural Revolution"—and subsequently fell out with the USSR—China was forced to go to the West with cap in hand, begging for aid. Had it not been for American assistance back then, China would have simply collapsed!
Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction. You are overweighting Mao's mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao, the establishment and solidification of socialism in China. The modern CPC has learned from both the successes and mistakes of both Stalin and Mao, while the CPSU decayed. As much as I wish the USSR had not dissolved, it did, and we are in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction.
I'm not arguing.
You are overweighting Mao’s mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao
I can offer my perspective from where I stand—which, as always, is a bit different...
You overestimate Mao’s achievements while underestimating the assistance provided by the USSR.
You always focus on Mao’s post-war accomplishments, yet you fail to mention his contributions during the wars against Japan and in the Civil War—periods when he truly demonstrated the full extent of his capabilities, thereby providing the impetus for the unification of China. This is, undeniably, a monumental achievement on his part. His shortcomings and lack of foresight, however, lay in his incompetence regarding economic theory, as well as his subsequent handling of industrial and agrarian policies.
The abrupt pivot toward the West was not a continuation of Mao’s strategy, but rather a forced measure—a desperate attempt to rescue an economy that had reached a complete dead end. After all, selling one’s soul to the devil is always the very last resort.
I am not undervaluing Mao's work in liberation, on that front I agree. I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao's economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up. The Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy, indeed, but China nevertheless is carrying the banner of socialism forward today.
I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao’s economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up.
A comrade forwarded this video to me today.
The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.
I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply took advantage of the situation.
A comrade forwarded me this video today.
The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.
I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply capitalized on the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xVVyS7NtB5k
And this is not the first time I have pointed out your double standards and contradictions!
Why won't you listen to me?
I repeat once again:
The criticism of Joseph Stalin—specifically, of his cult of personality—contained in Khrushchev’s report at the conclusion of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, along with the new Soviet course toward economic development under a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations, provoked Mao Zedong’s displeasure, as he viewed them as running counter to the concept of the "Leninist sword" and to communist ideology as a whole.
By the way, read this too: the CIA had a hand in it as well—the bastards!
I'm aware that the US Empire took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. As I said, it was a tragedy, and a mistake. However, this does not mean China's socialism is invalid or wrong. I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are? I value both Stalin and Mao greatly. Both made mistakes, but both were critical for the establishment of socialism.
Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao. This is why the Gang of Four took power, causing all manner of confusion, and resulted in Deng Xiaoping courses correcting. Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire's plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.
I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are?
Yes, of course I can explain.
As we know: The primary cause of the rift between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev lay in the policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations—a course Khrushchev proclaimed at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Mao Zedong viewed this policy as a departure from Marxism-Leninism and a betrayal of the global revolution, which led to deep ideological and geopolitical disagreements.
As we know: Deng adopted a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with the West in the 1970s...
Do you not see the contradiction here, Comrade? If that is the case, then China and the USSR ought to reconcile, since their policies are identical. As we recall, the 1970s saw a period of "détente" between the USSR and the USA.
Incidentally, it was when Khrushchev pivoted toward the West that the USSR became hooked on the "oil needle"—a dependency it still hasn't managed to kick...
The monetary reform of 1961 was carried out in order to peg the ruble to the dollar.
Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao.
I would be very surprised, Comrade, if you said otherwise.
I met a Chinese guy on Reddit whose father fled to the U.S. during the Cultural Revolution.
But it probably wasn't any worse—because fewer people actually died during the Cultural Revolution; the events there consisted mostly of unprecedented repression.
This is why the Gang of Four took power
I think the "Gang of Four" affair was Deng clearing his own path to power. The internal political struggle at the time was extremely fierce.
Did you see the news footage of that trial?
There was one woman among the defendants—I don't recall her name, though she was a close associate of Mao—and for some reason, I felt sorry for her. When she delivered her final statement in court, it struck me that only a true communist facing execution could speak like that...
Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire’s plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.
Let's put it this way: China outmaneuvered the U.S. The U.S. underestimated China's strength. This is what we have come to call the "Chinese Miracle." Americans are pragmatists; they don't believe in miracles... :))))
It is just like how the West slept on the USSR back in the 1930s... they, too, refused to believe in a miracle at the time.
However, I believe that comparing these two miracles is somewhat inappropriate. As you rightly noted, the conditions under which these goals were achieved were quite different.
I believe you are mistaken, comrade. I am not actually Nikita Khrushchev nor am I Mao Zedong. Any "double-standard" you see with Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era and the Gang of Four must be considered from that context, and not merely from one aspect of Mao's critique of Khrushchev's policy before the Gang of Four era.
Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao's incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.
As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.
Any “double-standard” you see with Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era
You’ve probably misunderstood me again, Comrade.
What you call Deng Xiaoping’s "openness," Mao called Khrushchev’s "revisionism."
Deng did exactly what Khrushchev had attempted to do—only later. Or do you consider it a mistake on Mao’s part that he didn’t beat Khrushchev to the punch and establish relations with the West first?
Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao’s incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.
I don't understand why you—a man with the mindset of a dialectical materialist—are always prone to idealizing things. It is still a Party, and the same internal Party struggle is at play.
Let me tell you how it all unfolded in the USSR. When Gorbachev came to power and launched Perestroika, a great many members of the Central Committee were opposed to it. This was the so-called "Old Guard"—or, if you prefer, you could call them the "Gang of Four." These were Brezhnev's people. Within a very short timeframe—and very quietly—these individuals were either removed from their posts or sidelined for one reason or another; some were compromised and forced to step down. It wasn't as loud, brutal, or theatrical as the affair involving the original "Gang of Four," but the result was the same: the entire Old Guard—that "Gang of Four"—simply dissolved into the ether of existence...
To suggest that the "Great Helmsman" Deng was thinking about the people or about reforms back then—much as Gorbachev supposedly was during Perestroika while simultaneously purging his rivals—is, at the very least, naive, Comrade! At that time, they were thinking about one thing and one thing only: power.
And I recently told you something untrue. Gorbachev did have a plan. It was the "Acceleration" plan—a concept originally conceived by Andropov. Andropov had entrusted its development to three individuals: Ryzhkov, Gorbachev, and... well, I’ve forgotten the third one. This "Acceleration" plan concerned exclusively economic reforms—there were absolutely no political or ideological components to it!
Over the course of two years—largely thanks to Ryzhkov—the plan was fully developed, and in 1985, Gorbachev officially launched it. He immediately presented it during the very first plenary session of the Central Committee. It was Andropov’s "Acceleration" plan.
It was a plan for economic reforms!
Then, in 1987—when Perestroika truly began (that is, when the term Perestroika first started appearing in the newspapers)—the scope of the reforms expanded to encompass not only economic matters but also state-level and ideological issues. Ryzhkov opposed this expansion and subsequently resigned. This comes from the memoirs of Ryzhkov himself, who passed away not long ago.
Yakovlev—who at the time served as the USSR's chief ideologue—bears the entire blame. It was he who persuaded Gorbachev to undertake ideological reform. This was a fatal error!
However, to this day, I still cannot determine whether or not the CIA had a hand in it.
This is because Yakovlev spent a great deal of time working at the Soviet Embassy in Canada. Gorbachev, too, traveled there at Yakovlev's invitation—long before he became president. Yakovlev arranged a meeting between Gorbachev and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau—presumably, the modern-day Trudeau is his son or grandson. While in Canada, Gorbachev also met with representatives from the United States. This took place in the early 1980s. It would be fascinating to know what exactly they discussed there. I do not rule out the possibility that Yakovlev was working for the CIA—perhaps even unwittingly.
As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.
Yes, I agree that retaining political control is to Mao's credit, as he built the foundation of the state apparatus.
Deng did not do what Khrushchev did, for the following key reasons:
-
Deng upheld Stalin and Mao, refusing to create a historical nihilism among the people.
-
Deng did not state that class struggle was over, but instead that it was alive and well, and must be constantly watched out for.
-
Deng turned a largely backwards economy into a more progressive form, Khrushchev weakened a more advanced economy into a more regressive one.
I appreciate the added background detail for the Soviet perspective, but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.
No, that’s not at all what I mean, Comrade!
I am talking about double standards:
The Chinese CPC labeled Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the West as "Khrushchev’s revisionism."
Some time later, Deng initiated a rapprochement with the West. The Chinese CPC called this "opening up."
but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.
Khrushchev was a pale, insignificant figure compared to Stalin—and likely compared to Mao, too.
Someone in China once said—I don’t recall the exact words or who said it—that Mao was the matador and Khrushchev the bull.
Comparing Mao and Khrushchev is indeed inappropriate—except, perhaps, regarding their education and experience in economic management. In every other respect, Mao was a far more significant figure. A characteristic trait of Khrushchev’s during the Stalin era was that he executed orders very well but never showed initiative. That is likely how Khrushchev differed from Mao; Khrushchev was a sycophant and a careerist.
For instance, during the purges, Khrushchev ranked second in terms of the number of people on the lists of suspects he submitted to Stalin for approval. He was zealous in his efforts to curry favor with Stalin.
And then he accused Stalin of the very thing he himself did better than anyone else... )))
It's widely acknowledged that the later Mao era and the era of the Gang of Four was filled with mistakes, and that Reform & Opening Up was a course correction. You may call this "double standards," but learning from mistakes when practice doesn't live up to expectations is how we grow.
It’s widely acknowledged that the later Mao
We’ve finally reached a consensus, Comrade! There’s just a slight discrepancy regarding the dates. You say the late Mao era began in 1968, whereas I maintain that the late Mao era you’re referring to actually began after Stalin’s death. Let me just clarify one more thing: from 1950 onwards—after suffering four strokes—Stalin didn’t really make any major decisions in the country. A triumvirate was formed—Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov—to prepare all key state projects, while Stalin merely affixed the final approval. So, in essence, Stalin had already died back in 1950.
If we settle on a middle ground... say, 1959—would that work for you, Comrade?... ))))
I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it.
Comrade, just so you know: if I use ")))", it means I'm joking.
Of course, one shouldn't date events that way.
I wanted to highlight the fact that you agreed with me on at least one thing!)))
I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it.
When you see that ")))", you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.
Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.
Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn't about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that... Vox populi, vox Dei.
Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:
"To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn't properly mastered Mao's Little Red Book."
You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.
So, please forgive me for my past stubbornness.
I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.
I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!
I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx's theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the "Asiatic mode of production." I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.
Given that my knowledge of Marx's theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.
Regarding your view of Marx's philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.
However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),
Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with "Zasulich." Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx's theory by even a millimeter.
You misinterpret Marx's statement. I'm fully aware of Marx's views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.
The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.
Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China's conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn't even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.
The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable
Yes, the NEP was likely necessary—it was not without reason that Lenin introduced it. The peasantry had begun to resent the prodrazvyorstka (grain requisitioning system), and peasant uprisings flared up in several regions; Lenin introduced the NEP out of necessity—in part, to pacify the peasants.
However, Stalin did not abolish the NEP immediately; the policy remained in place—albeit under duress—for another four years.
Joseph Stalin viewed the New Economic Policy (NEP) not as a means of building socialism, but rather as a forced, temporary retreat designed to save Soviet power from economic ruin.
He criticized it for fostering a resurgence of capitalist elements, posing a threat of the countryside undergoing a "kulak"-driven regression, and being fundamentally incompatible with a planned economy.
Key points of Stalin's critique of the NEP:
Resurgence of Capitalism:
Stalin argued that the NEP legalized private entrepreneurs ("NEPmen") and stimulated the growth of the kulak class, leading to social stratification that worked to the detriment of the proletariat.
Constraints on Industrialization:
Small-scale private enterprise was incapable of providing the country with the heavy industry and advanced technology required for national defense.
The Threat of Socialist Failure:
In a speech delivered at a conference of Marxist historians (1929), he stated explicitly:
"If we adhere to the NEP, it is because it serves the cause of socialism. But when it ceases to serve that cause... we will cast it to hell."
As for Mao’s economy, it was again rapid industrialization.
I highly value Mao's achievements in unifying China—that is, indeed, an invaluable accomplishment.
However, it seems to me that as a politician, economist, and strategist, Mao was rather lackluster... perhaps because he was a romantic and an idealist.
And what, exactly, were his economic achievements? Mao compelled every peasant to build a furnace on their own property and cast low-quality pig iron. This is precisely what Stalin had refused to do: hand over heavy industry to small-scale cooperatives. Mao sought to boost pig iron and steel production tenfold within a decade using this method—relying on the peasants and the furnaces in their backyards. Do you consider that a sound strategic move?
The fanatical campaign to exterminate sparrows was merely a way to identify a concrete "enemy"—something to blame for poor harvests—rather than acknowledging the leadership's own miscalculations.
The conflict with the USSR was a tactic to divert the public's attention from the country's true problems by designating an external enemy. At that time, China was engaged in a full-blown campaign to discredit the Soviet Union. They were plastering up all sorts of leaflets... it strikes me as very bizarre.
Meanwhile, in the USSR, the newspapers were describing China as—and you might be surprised to hear this—a "militarist" state.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
As for the Sino-Soviet split, it's a tragedy, and was avoidable.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
There are many contradictions in your post, Comrade.
How could the USSR have achieved what China did—with the aid of Western assistance—if such Western aid was a priori ruled out, given that, in U.S. state strategy, the USSR was designated as Enemy No. 1?
And once again, you are pushing your central thesis: that China succeeded because it rectified the mistakes made by the USSR...
Don't you find that we are just going around in circles?
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent.
You probably meant to say that industrialization was a complete failure and morphed into the "Cultural Revolution." It seems to me that it was a gesture of desperation.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped.
Should I laugh or cry, comrade?... ))))
Key Milestones in Soviet-Chinese Nuclear Cooperation (1950–1958): Research Reactor and Cyclotron: On September 27, 1958, at the Institute of Atomic Energy in Beijing—with the assistance of the USSR—China's first experimental heavy-water reactor and cyclotron were commissioned.
Do you believe that agronomy is more complex?
The Russians trained 10,000 Chinese specialists in nuclear energy. It was thanks to the USSR that China acquired nuclear weapons.
Mao really should have asked the Russians; the Soviets are quite nimble when it comes to catching sparrows.... )))
Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
I fully agree with you on this point—except regarding the economic aspect: Mao laid the foundations of a rock-solid party system that remains standing to this day. He also unified China.
As for his aspirations for China's development, however, his actions strike me as chaotic—almost as if he had conceived of something grandiose but didn't know where to begin.
At heart, he was a revolutionary, not a statesman. There were a great many such figures in the USSR during the 1930s—people who simply could not adapt to peacetime life.
The USSR was ruled as enemy number 1 precisely because it took a hard-line stance against colonialism and capitalism. The PRC, despite siding against colonialism and capitalism, ultimately is not nearly as fierce a fighter. This is the tradeoff, the "deal with the devil" that China made in order to advance socialism forward. The soviet path was not incorrect, but neither was the Chinese decision.
As for the Cultural revolution, again, it was a product of China coming from even less development than Russia had during its revolution. China absolutely relied on soviet help, no doubt exists in my mind on that, but you clearly cannot draw a 1 to 1 comparison. Without the industrialization of the economy under Mao, China would not be the industrial giant it is today.
The reason I say Mao's contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin, turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one. Like the Stalin era, mistakes and excess occurred, but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became the backbone of the future economy and brought incredible improvements to quality of life and production.
The USSR was ruled as enemy number 1 precisely because it took a hard-line stance against colonialism and capitalism. The PRC, despite siding against colonialism and capitalism, ultimately is not nearly as fierce a fighter.
On the one hand, China isn't exactly a fierce champion of socialist ideals; yet on the other, Mao loathes Khrushchev—and actually went to war against the USSR precisely because Khrushchev had betrayed those very ideals, betrayed Stalin. It’s a bit odd, isn't it, Comrade?
Kafka is nervously smoking in the corner... You get what I mean, anyway.
This is the tradeoff, the “deal with the devil” that China made in order to advance socialism forward. The soviet path was not incorrect, but neither was the Chinese decision.
Yes, China had no other choice back then. It was a choice between reconciling with the USSR or turning toward the West. The Chinese proved to be a proud people, and so they turned to the West. I believe that China did not want to play second fiddle; it aspired to be the greatest socialist power of all.
What do you think would have happened back then—in the 70s—if China had chosen the USSR instead of selling its soul to the devil?
What course of events do you envision if two great nations were to unite against the yoke of capitalism—that force which devours everything in its path? Whether in the West or in China, there is essentially no difference... for what does it matter whether capitalism is "red" or "white"?
Without the industrialization of the economy under Mao
It failed—even though the Russians were helping. A great many Chinese students studied at universities across the USSR; there were plenty in my city, too. The USSR helped build factories and supplied machinery. Mao personally toured Soviet plants and copied their technological processes. He even secured a loan from Stalin.
So why, in that case, wouldn't they have carried out industrialization?
You give Mao all the credit, while the assistance from the USSR somehow gets completely overlooked... Everything Mao achieved back then, he achieved with the help of the USSR. Had the USSR not provided nuclear weapons technology, the U.S. would have simply pecked China to death—strangled it. It was only after acquiring nuclear weapons that China attained true freedom. This is precisely what Iran needs; otherwise, it will be pecked to death in the exact same way.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin, turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one. Like the Stalin era, mistakes and excess occurred, but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became the backbone of the future economy and brought incredible improvements to quality of life and production.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin
Rather, like Lenin. Mao is the ideologue of Chinese socialism. Stalin always referred to himself as Lenin's disciple.
turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one.
A different view prevails here: that the best work Mao ever did was accomplished before—or, to use the Soviet analogy, prior to 1921. Subsequently, however, Mao went off the rails, drifting into "uncharted territory"—uncharted, at least, for him. His approach to economic construction ultimately devolved into a nightmare for China. The path he was pursuing proved untenable, necessitating an abrupt change of course.
but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became
Yes, of course, there were many mistakes, but Stalin ended his journey on a high note.
As I said, the Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy. The world would have been better off had it never happened. However, China is not capitalist, just like public ownership under capitalism is not socialism, private ownership under socialism is not capitalism.
Further, I am not giving Mao all of the credit. Of course the USSR assisted. However, you're giving Mao practically none of the credit for overseeing the same tumultuous period Stalin oversaw, in a country even less developed. Mao's economic construction was not a mistake, it was uneven and unstable but ultimately positive, and serves as the bedrock for the modern socialist market economy.
Neither Mao nor Stalin were perfect. Both made mistakes, as any socialist leader will, especially in some of the earliest attempts. However, both also achieved tremendous results.
private ownership under socialism is not capitalism.
Private property and the means of production are two different kinds of property. I hope Dialectics will overcome this obstacle.
And I agree with you that China has a unique government system, unlike any other in the world.
The struggle and unity of opposites. When class struggle rages, socialism is being built; when the struggle ceases, communism begins.
But we mustn't forget, as Stalin would probably say in my place, the NEP is a swamp: the further you go, the deeper you sink, and the harder it is to get out.
However, you’re giving Mao practically none of the credit for overseeing the same tumultuous period Stalin oversaw
I fully give Mao his due for having governed during the same era that Lenin did. Furthermore—with the assistance of the USSR—Mao laid the foundation for the China of the future. However, those things he attempted to accomplish on his own—or believed he could accomplish single-handedly—did not turn out particularly well.
For Reference:
Under Mao Zedong, the foundations of heavy industry were established in China. While the exact number of small-scale enterprises (specifically, backyard furnaces) ran into the hundreds of thousands, there were 154 major industrial facilities of primary importance. These were constructed during the 1950s with active technological and financial support from the USSR.
Soviet Assistance (1950s): The USSR transferred technology to China and built 154 major industrial enterprises from the ground up. These included giants such as the First Automobile Works (FAW) in Changchun, metallurgical complexes in Anshan and Wuhan, as well as aircraft and machine-building plants.
The "Great Leap Forward" Campaign (1958–1960): Mao Zedong attempted to accelerate industrialization using artisanal methods. Approximately 600,000 small, makeshift blast furnaces for smelting steel were constructed across the country. The attempt failed: the resulting steel was of poor quality, and the campaign triggered a massive economic crisis and famine.
The "Third Front" Program (1960s): Following the rupture in relations with the USSR, China began constructing military, heavy industrial, and machine-building plants in the country's interior—specifically in the mountainous and hard-to-reach western provinces—in preparation for a potential war. Several hundred such facilities were erected, although their economic efficiency proved to be extremely low.
Now, pay particular attention to the years 1958–1960. This was precisely when Mao began "hunting sparrows," scapegoating them as the cause of all the nation's failures. In reality, the true culprit was the disastrous failure of his project involving the backyard blast furnaces operated by the peasantry. I spoke about this earlier.
Now, just judge for yourself: how much simpler it would have been to simply turn to Soviet specialists—who, at the time, were world leaders in steel production—rather than embarking on that monstrous gamble, which ultimately led to the starvation of the peasantry.
How do you assess such a decision coming from a man who was the leader of a vast nation? I call it a reckless decision! He didn't want to invest money in large-scale industrial enterprises—the way Stalin did over the course of a decade; he wanted to achieve it faster, and solely at the expense of the peasants.
Just think about how absurd that sounds: becoming the world leader in steel production on the backs of the peasants.
How does that even make sense, Comrade? There is only one explanation: Mao confused steel with rice cakes.
We had a similar "corn tycoon" of our own... Khrushchev, who thought the U.S. had built its wealth on corn... the moron!
And mind you, I’m not drawing my data from books by modern Russian authors; I’m drawing it from old Soviet films.
If you could actually understand what is being said in them, your ears would shrivel up, and all your dialectical musings would hit a brick wall. This is a subject you know absolutely nothing about.
But I won't translate it for you—I wouldn't want to kill the poet inside you.
Most importantly, the man narrating the clip states that he created this film for one specific reason.
He is a writer, and he had a falling-out with his colleagues—fellow socialist writers from the GDR and France.
Do you know why they fell out?
Now, take a deep breath, Comrade.
Because he argues that the socialism practiced in China isn't real socialism...
I’m not making any assertions here myself; I’m simply showing you archival footage from the 1970s.
Neither Mao nor Stalin were perfect.
I completely agree with you.
I don't just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.
Regarding Mao's significance in liberating China, I already agree with you. However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao's contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.
As for the Great Leap Forward, during 1949 and 1978, the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question.
In 1952, industry was 36% of gross value of national output in China. By 1975, industry was 72% and agriculture was 28%. It is quite obvious that Mao’s supposedly disastrous socialist economic policies paved the way for the rapid economic and industrial development of Reform and Opening Up.
Official Chinese statistics show that after the end of the Leap in 1962, industrial output value had doubled; the gross value of agricultural products increased by 35 percent; steel production in 1962 was between 10.6 million tons or 12 million tons; investment in capital construction rose to 40 percent from 35 percent in the First Five-Year Plan period; the investment in capital construction was doubled; and the average income of workers and farmers increased by up to 30 percent. Additionally, there was significant capital construction (especially in iron, steel, mining and textile enterprises) that ultimately contributed greatly to China's industrialization.
Heavy industry grew a great deal in this period too. Developments such as the establishment of the Taching oil field during the Great Leap Forward provided a great boost to the development of heavy industry. A massive oil field was developed in China. This was developed after 1960 using indigenous techniques, rather than Soviet or western techniques. (Specifically the workers used pressure from below to help extract the oil. They did not rely on constructing a multitude of derricks, as is the usual practice in oil fields).
See the original link for sources. Of course, there were mistakes, such as relying on the peasantry for the creation of steel in backyard furnaces. However, it is also undeniable that industrialization was rapidly achieved.
I have given my arguments as for why China is socialist, and the term "real socialism" is more religious and sentimental than logical. China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat, and has public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. This is true.
I don’t just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.
I understand all of that, but I’m getting at something slightly different.
I hope you’ll agree with me that socialism in China is not yet fully built—that it is still in a raw, unfinished state.
In your view, what will socialism in China look like once it reaches its completed form?
How will people be induced—through the use of "soft power"—to give up private property? Or will they be compelled to give it up at all?
However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao’s contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.
Yes, Mao did lay the industrial and agrarian foundations over the course of several decades—I agree with that.
However, don't forget that by the 1940s, the USSR had risen to second place in the world in terms of industrial capacity! Stalin even appeared on the cover of Time. The entire world acknowledged it. And this wasn't merely a foundation, but a fully operational industrial sector. Furthermore, you can scarcely imagine the destitute state the country was in back in 1930.
Now, perhaps, you understand why I consider something else entirely to be truly remarkable.
the term “real socialism” is more religious and sentimental than logical.
You’re trying to take a jab at me again with this "incorrect socialism" argument.
Okay, let me be more precise, then. In that video, the host referred to Chinese socialism as Maoism—specifically stating that Maoism is a distorted superstructure built upon Marxism and Leninism. That is precisely—word for word—how it was viewed in the USSR back then.
And let me reiterate: I didn't say this to you; the USSR said it. Every single film in the Soviet Union was subjected to rigorous censorship before being aired on television.
China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat
Yes—except that the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was struck from the CPC Charter in the early 80s... in case you didn't know.
Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced. As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy. Here's Cheng Enfu's diagram explaining it:
I'm aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism. China also criticized Soviet socialism, and in many cases I agree with the Soviets over the Chinese socialists. However, this does not mean Mao Zedong Thought is a "distorted superstructure," Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China's specific socialist construction process. Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced.
Yes, I completely agree with you and have never denied that. I merely pointed out China's current shortcomings—issues that need to be addressed, rather than denied as if they didn't exist.
As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy.
Yes, the ultimate goal is clear to me as well.
Here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram explaining it:
Yes, I have a rough idea—but, Comrade, I don't know English quite as well as I'd like. And Google doesn't translate tables...
I’m aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism.
That’s putting it very mildly... The thawing of relations didn't begin until the Gorbachev era. Finally, the Chinese leadership liked what was happening in the USSR... ))) But in reality, it was all very simple: the USSR admitted defeat.
China also criticized Soviet socialism
(What was written in Smena magazine, February 1–3, 1967)
"Red Guards" (紅衛兵) Block the Way
"For the sixth day, the Soviet Embassy in Beijing has been besieged by frenzied mobs of Red Guards. Anti-Soviet speeches are being broadcast via loudspeakers. Announcers read out 'death sentences' issued by the Red Guards against embassy staff members. A welcoming ceremony for Chinese students arriving in Beijing—students who had participated in hooliganistic disturbances on Red Square in Moscow on January 25—was turned into an anti-Soviet demonstration. Speeches delivered at the event contained crude invective and calls for violent reprisals against Soviet citizens. On the streets, Soviet citizens—including diplomats leaving the embassy—are surrounded by crowds of Red Guards who block their path, hold them in place for hours on end, and subject them to humiliation, intimidation, and blackmail."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Russia,_Beijing
Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China’s specific socialist construction process.
...very specific, to put it mildly...
Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This question should be directed at Ma—and at those who buy luxury cars. China is the global leader in luxury car purchases.
I’m curious: when China makes its full transition to socialism, what will become of all those cars, yachts, and villas? Or will every Chinese person be able to afford them? ... )))
I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker.
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
In case you hadn't noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.
If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.
As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end...
We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.
Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.
I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR... yeah, right.
To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
This is the first I've heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.
This is the first I've heard of the "Line of the Masses"—very interesting.
Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.
Excessive luxury is being cracked down on
I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.
I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience.
As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.
While looking into it, I came across this:
"But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved."
No, Comrade, it wasn't Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957... ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.
I decided to explore Mao's writings a bit and chose this book:
"On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People"
the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media
This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.
and punishing those found guilty of corruption
By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin's eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.
Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.
China, the number of billionaires is decreasing
Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.
I'm aware that Mao believed that. That's why the narrative that Deng Xiaoping "backstabbed" socialism is false, Reform & Opening Up was a continuation of the economic basis laid out by Mao.
As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it's only to hide it from the public. A more comprehensive view of China, however, reveals it to not be mere rhetoric but the outcome of having both a socialist state and the contradictions rising from marketization.
I’m aware that Mao believed that.
Yes, exactly! That is the main argument—held by the Chinese themselves, by Western socialists (Trotskyists), and by the "new breed" of Western socialists (like you): that China fell out with the USSR because Khrushchev pursued a policy of "openness." But I keep telling you all that this isn't true, and it wasn't about Stalin! The reason was something else entirely.
Relations between Khrushchev and Mao deteriorated completely after Mao asked the USSR to build a nuclear submarine fleet for China. Khrushchev agreed, but with the stipulation that the fleet would be a joint venture and based in Soviet Far Eastern ports. For some reason, Mao took great offense at this and refused. Now you can see just how brazen Mao was. These are all matters of public record; you can read about it yourself.
I believe the reason for the rift was that, after Stalin's death, Mao considered himself the world's leading socialist—superior to the others and capable of handling everything on his own. He did not view Khrushchev as his equal.
We saw how that turned out.
As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it’s only to hide it from the public.
Yes, I know the statistics: wage growth in China is 4–6% annually. But I’m not convinced that wages are rising only for the poor—or that the 4–6% gains belonging to the middle and upper classes are being taken away and redistributed to China’s lower-income population.
Show me the data on that trend, and then I’ll agree with you.
I’d like to see statistics for these companies:
JD.com: The revenue leader among China’s private enterprises, generating around 1.16 trillion yuan annually.
Alibaba Group: JD.com’s main rival in the e-commerce market, showing steady growth driven by logistics and international expansion.
ByteDance (owner of TikTok): The fastest-growing brand and largest private tech corporation. According to analyst reports, its brand value grew by 45% in a single year, reaching $153.5 billion.
In cases where profits surged by 45% (an increase of 70 billion per year), exactly how much of that actually went to the poorer segments of the population?
I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough.
As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either.
I think you’re reading more into my position than I have stated myself.
Yes, Comrade, you’re right. It’s a very painful subject for me.
To me, this is just like Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, a work that slandered and humiliated the entire Soviet ideology. Both have fostered a distorted view of the Soviet era. They have given rise to all sorts of false theories that are published and circulated worldwide on a massive scale.
Yet the Soviet soul is all I have left in life now. I am being bombed every night, but I live in the past—I live on memories...
As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in “scary language.” The trend is gradual, but it isn’t nonexistent either.
Ma crossed a red line; Xi decided that the oligarchs were becoming a threat to him... though he seems to have realized this rather late.
We can certainly see Ma’s attempt to meddle in state affairs. People used to tell me that China has no oligarchs because Chinese billionaires don't interfere in government business. Yet, I highly doubt that was the first time Ma had meddled in state affairs—after all, he is a long-standing Communist Party member.
To be honest, Comrade, what is actually happening in China is a closely guarded secret.
Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism.
That’s an interesting way to put it. Are you referring to Cervantes and the windmills?
My subjective pessimism stems from the fact that I’ve lost faith in my own future—my personal future. It’s just that, due to certain circumstances, I reached a point where I lost hope for what lies ahead. I’ve come to terms with that now.
As for objective pessimism, that has nothing to do with my personal outlook. If you like, you could call it dialectics in its most extreme form... )))))
But seriously, Comrade, when was the last time you saw someone looking toward humanity's future with confidence and optimism—without any illusions?
I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism.
I’m referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it.
Yes, you described that guy accurately. And that’s hardly surprising, because in this world, he has no choice but to be a sociopath.
As for the idea that I might be talking nonsense—that’s unlikely; I have far too much practical life experience to spout complete rubbish. I’ve clawed my way to the top three times in my life, only to hit rock bottom again. Right now, I’m at the bottom once more. Would you be an optimist if you were in my shoes, Comrade? ... ))) And please, don’t tell me that I’m the one to blame for it all, rather than the way life is set up!
I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist.
You just got lucky, Comrade! I'm happy for you.
I was just like that once, too.
I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis.
Yes, it's Dostoevsky: The most terrible thing is when a person has nowhere to go. This quote reflects one of Fyodor Dostoevsky's most haunting themes: the crushing despair of total alienation and the human necessity for purpose.
I don't mean it as a moral condemnation, or an expectation to be "better," but as an explanation for why we are in disagreement on certain aspects.
Comrade, I don't want you to be upset with me. You're a very interesting conversationalist for me.
Believe me, I'm sometimes as genuinely surprised by your information as you are by mine.
According to my information, the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960) was Mao Zedong's massive economic campaign aimed at the accelerated industrialization and modernization of China. The campaign failed due to utopian management methods, the destruction of agriculture, and environmental problems, resulting in the Great Chinese Famine—one of the largest humanitarian disasters in history.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E4%B8%89%E5%B9%B4%E5%9B%B0%E9%9A%BE%E6%97%B6%E6%9C%9F
You say that the foundation was laid...
According to my information, the imposition of pseudoscience (Lysenkoism): In agriculture, experiments were conducted with deep plowing and ultra-dense seeding, which led to soil depletion and a sharp drop in crop yields.
According to your information, crop yields increased by 150%.
If this has offended me, then I apologize to you, of course, but I don't understand what I'm apologizing for... We're talking about Mao the manager now.
What's the catch, Comrade?
It's certainly true that mistakes in work and management exaggerated the impacts of natural disaster. This did result in making a naturally occurring famine worse, similar to what happened in the 1930s soviet famine. However, between 1949 and 1978, agriculture was dramatically overhauled and succeeded in achieving food security, ending famine in a region where famine was historically common (again, similar to the 1930s soviet famine). Was the Great Leap Forward a clear success? No, not necessarily. Over-enthusiasm and mistakes in work magnified the impact of weather disaster. Millions did die. However, these mistakes were rectified, and agriculture was successfully advanced.
It’s certainly true that mistakes in work and management exaggerated the impacts of natural disaster.
If you’ve lived in the countryside, you must understand that a natural disaster cannot drag on for four years.
again, similar to the 1930s soviet famine
It was just the 1933–34 season—a single season. Yes, there were miscalculations at the local level as well; much depended on the collective farm chairman and how he handled the problems. One collective farm might get by just fine in '33, while right next door, people in another were dying of starvation. People began fleeing the starving farms for the ones that weren't starving—and that, too, became a problem. The issue wasn't systemic, but rather structural or localized. Under such harsh conditions, many leaders simply couldn't cope with their responsibilities.
I had two grandmothers—my own flesh and blood—with whom I spoke back then. One grandmother was from the Kyiv region; they didn't go hungry in '33 because they owned a cow. My other grandmother was from the Kursk region—the area where the Ukrainians recently advanced. People did go hungry there, but it wasn't a mortal famine. Both of my grandfathers perished in the summer of 1941. After the war, my father arrived in the city barefoot because he had no shoes. He got a job at a factory as a rigger. Decades later, he was wearing a suit and tie, putting on a fresh shirt every day; he held a PhD... and served as the factory's Chief Engineer.
When I spoke to you about raising a generation of young people—that is the kind of generation we need to raise: a generation like my father's.
Ultimately, however, Perestroika began; science became something nobody needed anymore, and my father found himself out of work. As it turned out, he didn't know how to trade.
My point is this: in exchange for the fact that my ancestors went hungry on the collective farms in the 1930s, their children—the children of destitute and starving peasants—lived the high life for the rest of their days... right up until Perestroika. It was a generous recompense for their suffering and starvation. None of it was in vain!
The outcome of the famines is a positive rather than a negative one—namely, that new reforms and shake-ups are once again needed in their wake.
But alright, have it your way: Mao... tried... to do something similar.
Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR.
Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development.
Comrade, that line only worked in the USSR of the 1930s—when work was a source of pride, and nothing more! In the 1960s, however, people in the USSR derived genuine physical enjoyment from the fruits of their labor—a time when store shelves were overflowing with goods. A kilogram of black caviar cost $10 back then; today in Russia, it costs $500 per kilo.
Imagine: you work as a fitter at a factory, come home, and eat black caviar by the spoonful. Of course, nobody actually did that—but a working man could easily afford to buy himself some black caviar to go with his sandwiches for breakfast.
Had it not been for the war, this reality would have arrived as early as the 1950s. The task of rebuilding the country took an immense amount of time.
Comrade, if not for the war—and if Stalin had lived longer—China would be nervously smoking on the sidelines right now... )))
You could be correct, but we would never know. History did not take that course, what we have is what we have. I do not believe Stalin's economy to have been bad, and wished it continued and the USSR was here today. Sadly, it is not, and the world is paying the price.
You could be correct, but we would never know.
If only people in the USSR back then had known what they stood to lose...
Agreed.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists."
“stupid materialism,” as you called it
It wasn't me who named it, Lenin named it.... ))))
as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism
Yes, you're probably right.
Really, this is what I'm more getting at:
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man.
- V. I. Lenin
I agree with Lenin, of course... )))
Here, I found this especially for you. Just don't scold me, please, it's not me speaking.
I found a video of that Russian communist whose book, only in translation, some guy here presented to me as an argument.
Therefore, you should understand this man the same way.
This is Platoshkin, whom Putin recently almost sent to prison because he called for revolution. He miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
He's a professor, a graduate of Moscow State University, who worked as a diplomat back in the USSR.
Turn on English subtitles. You've never heard such an opinion... from "Eastern Communists"... )))
He is one of the most ardent communists currently existing in Russia.
Subtitles do not work in English on my end, so unfortunately I cannot read it, and I do not speak Russian. Is there a text version I can run through a translator?
It's a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation
I couldn't find the transcript of this video.
I can summarize his views.
Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country's departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing's overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician's main theses on China: "Special" socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping's decisions and China's current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.
There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics.
You aren't the first person unable to translate Russian videos using subtitles; I suspect you are being restricted.
In that video, Platoshkin discussed various forms of socialism—specifically, socialism as it existed in China, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and similar places. I didn't provide you with a full translation of that video; rather, I gave you a brief, bullet-point summary of Platoshkin's views regarding China.
I did this so you would understand that I am not the only idealist out there—there are others, too. These are people who remember the USSR and, through the lens of their own subjective worldview, compare it with what is happening today. There are a great many such people here, Comrade. They are a diverse bunch—some smart, some foolish; some cheerful, some somber—but they are united by one thing: they were born in the USSR.
Nowadays in Russia, it has become fashionable to travel to North Korea—solely for the sake of experiencing the USSR once again. These people aren't concerned with Marxist economics; they simply want to return to the USSR—which is precisely why they don't go to China in search of that experience.
Moreover, North Korea is the only country that has stood up in Russia's defense. In North Korea, Russians are held in high regard and are still considered friends to this day.
You made a very astute observation: for a Soviet person, a lack of "soul" is utterly unacceptable. That, Comrade, is a dogma.
I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts.
"I’m aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet."
Comrade—as I understand it—you possess a soul; otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
Assuming you are not being disingenuous, do you not find that you acquired this soul through the ideals of socialism—however materialistic those ideals may have been?
You may be quite surprised to learn that my parents actually supported Perestroika—and even the collapse of the USSR. From the early 1980s onward, they tuned in to Radio Liberty. They put their faith in Seva Novgorodtsev and Alexander Solzhenitsyn; his books were even read aloud, live on air. This propaganda campaign was specifically engineered to target the "thinking" intelligentsia. In doing so, they effectively poisoned the intelligentsia. As for the common people, they were poisoned with Western culture—a toxic brew of sex, violence, and drugs. I remember how alluring that "forbidden fruit" seemed to me back then. At the time, I didn't understand any of it; but now, looking back, I see it all with crystal clarity. I can trace, step by step, the CIA's covert operation to dismantle the Soviet Union.
I will go even further: to this day, there remain a great many people in Russia who still haven't grasped what truly happened. These are the individuals who quickly adapted to the new reality and set about making money. These are the very people who, during the Soviet era, were nothing more than petty traders and profiteers—individuals whose activities were, by the standards of that time, considered criminal. It was precisely these people who rose to the top with astonishing speed. And now, you would be hard-pressed to convince them that life was actually better under the Soviet system. These individuals—who have amassed fortunes and now occupy the highest rungs of Russia's social hierarchy—are the ones shaping public opinion. Nowadays, the Russian people are being hoodwinked with notions of "God and Tsar"—specifically, the idea of a Tsar as God's anointed sovereign. And this utter nonsense is currently being hammered into the heads of ordinary Russians with dead earnestness. Their nostalgia is not for the USSR, but rather for Tsarist Russia... These profiteers are never satisfied; they crave more—specifically, they crave even greater power over the people. Only now, they are no longer noble aristocrats—but noble profiteers and thieves.
And when all of this unfolds against the backdrop of red flags at a parade in Moscow—with the Mausoleum, for some reason, hidden away from everyone—it looks like a farce!
"despite being its own unique form of juche socialism."
I didn't know that word. What I gathered from the videos I watched—made by Russian bloggers traveling to Korea specifically to experience a return to the USSR—was this: on the positive side, I really admired the way the youth are raised. It is exactly like it was in the Soviet Union—it actually brought a tear to my eye... :)
As for the downsides: the Party there constitutes a separate, privileged class. Isn't that precisely what that term signifies—the one I can't quite pronounce... Juche?
I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect.
As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt.
The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it’s similar to how it was with the CPSU.
If I recall correctly, only Party members are allowed to own cars there. Thank God the Chinese have helped out a bit with this lately... though, so far, it’s only been a very small amount.
The same goes for free apartments in upscale neighborhoods. It seems to me that the Party there enjoys far more privileges than the Party did in the USSR.
Do you see what I’m getting at? People don’t strive to achieve success in life; instead, they dream of getting into the Party.
My parents were not Party members. That’s because, in the USSR, the Party was more about unnecessary hassles and responsibilities than it was about privileges—unless, of course, you wanted to climb the Party ladder rapidly. But my parents had no need for that; they were perfectly content with things just as they were.
As far as I know, car ownership isn't limited to party members, and all apartments are free in the DPRK. Those deemed critical enough can get better lodgings, but this is not exclusive to party members.
There are very few cars there—I’m not sure what to compare it to; even in the USSR in the 1960s, there were more. Almost all of the vehicles are state-owned. Check YouTube—you’ll see for yourself just how many cars are on the streets.
As for the free apartments, I was referring to the upscale residential complexes in major cities and the like. I saw a video about them online. Incidentally, you don't actually need to know Korean to communicate there, as almost everyone can get by in Russian. One young woman, in fact—speaking in Russian—specifically mentioned that those are "Party buildings." They are the most beautiful and modern structures in the city.
As for China, here is a look at a Chinese village—and not even one of the worst ones:
(I have nothing against it; I'm just showing.)
Regarding car ownership, it's rising dramatically even in the last year. At one point it was far more limited, but the DPRK's economy is booming and trade with China is rising.
As for apartments, I don't doubt that better apartments are made available to more critical workers and party members, this is similar to the USSR. The DPRK is constantly building new apartments, and as this happens the range with which people can get apartments widens.
As for China's rural conditions, I'm well aware of the urban/rural gap, and this is thankfully something the CPC is focusing on improving.
Regarding car ownership, it’s rising dramatically even in the last year. At one point it was far more limited, but the DPRK’s economy is booming and trade with China is rising.
It's about time...
As for China’s rural conditions, I’m well aware of the urban/rural gap
As we recently discovered, this is a side effect of the NEP. It has spawned a class of wealthy individuals who will be incredibly difficult to combat later on. They will not simply yield to "soft power." They must be "dekulakized." How this is to be carried out in practice, I do not understand.
I'm aware that the urban/rural gap is a part of China's socialist market economy. China has responded to it with the poverty eradication program, supporting cooperatives at the rural level, and gradually focuses on industrializing the impoverished communities.
Yes, I’ve heard that before.
We are watching.
I’m not talking about the whole world; I’m talking about Russia. Here, people simply don’t trust Americans—especially in such a murky affair.
But I won't be able to prove anything to you... and you won't be able to prove anything to me, either.
do not believe in literal souls.
No one here talks about this.
It is a breadth of emotion, sincerity, a striving toward higher ideals, and the capacity for deep feeling.
Understood, in that case I believe I have a "soul."
Careful about stuff like this.
We are not speaking of liberalism; we are speaking of the bourgeoisie, which is a parasite on society.
Yes, someone else here clarified that this community is more of a roleplaying thing. I didn't know that before commenting.
English is not my native language. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. What do you mean by "role-playing games"?
Roleplaying games are a form of entertainment where people will act in the role of some fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons.
My use of it here is both as a joke and a genuine expression of disappointment in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas I've seen in this brief interaction.
Real socialist scholarship is when you don't know the difference between personal and private property
"fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons."
I already mentioned that I am not a native English speaker. I don't know what "in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons" means.
" in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas"
Then again, I don't understand what—in your view, or in the opinion of your socialist friends—constitutes "socialist scholarship and ideas." I would be very interested to hear this, particularly as someone who lived under actual socialism and remembers perfectly well what it is and what it looks like in practice.
And please also clarify: what exactly was it about my words that made you laugh? Even if I am a "role-player"—as you put it—I don't mind.
But hur durr! Who gives you the money to do all these things? HaVe YoU sAiD ThAnKyOu?!
There's a spy in the base
I'm still new. Doesn't /c/Socialism have a policy against brainwashed edgy kids?
Let's not say anything. They create circumstances that ensure their payments.
Workers have to understand what the oligarchs do so that workers can create structures that ensure that workers receive what they deserve.
Someone should replace "Build Community" with "Build Guillotines"
Building community is being in bed with a laptop? Humanity is doomed.
plants do all the growing thus all the food should belong to plants
Sounds good but who’s going to organize all the infrastructure that makes all these jobs possible in a functioning society? The people? They’re too busy doing all the work..
Assuming this is serious: There's a slew of jobs that aren't part of commodity production, but still vital: organization, administration, management, transportation, distribution, maintenance, point-of-sale workers, etc. They make up a smaller proportion of workers, and are paid out of the surplus value created by the commodity producers, because they're still 100% necessary for production.
Administration. There's a huge difference between administrative labor, and entitlement to the fruits of labor via private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
On the off chance this is serious.
The government.
In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement. The government is lobbied by capitalists whose goal is their own profit.
The government is those very oligarchs.
In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement.
Obviously but I wasn't talking about capitalist society.
looks at the comunity name Mmh socialism...
Sorry, I'm getting confused here. To me—based on what I've read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.
Western socialism
Good thing I'm a Chinese communist and not a western socialist.
Reformed capitalism is, in fact, not socialism, you are probably thinking of social democracy
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
A socialist business isn't controlled by a private owner (or major shareholders), it's controlled by its workers or by the government (or a mix of both). No one sits at the top and gets to award themself a massive chunk of the revenue just because their name is on the deed, so to speak. That's the difference.
You mean… the oligarchs?
No, the government. "The government" as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.
-
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
-
Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.
"The oligarchs" (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components. Thank you for enlightening me, Comrade...
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!
The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.
The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the "dictatorship of the proletariat" vanished from the CPC Charter...
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes.
And in socialist countries?... )))
The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains
It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through "War Communism."
Fantasy world stuff. Sounds great in theory but when throughout human history has it ever worked?
China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba are all in the process and have benefited massively from the workers having seized the state. The USSR also benefited massively before it's illegal dissolution and the people suffered greatly when they lost control of the state. It's only fantasy if you're a massively ignorant pillock.
Socialism has worked in every country it has been established in. They have all had their own problems, but these generally pale in comparison to the fundamental structural contradictions in capitalism, and have been some of the fastest developing countries in history.
Modern capitalist economies are already massively centralized and planned -- see "The People's Republic of Walmart."
Socialist countries fail because they are embargoed, which stifles their economy, which then stifles their legitimacy.
Exactly my point. It doesn’t work. Humans are the problem that will not allow a society to flourish. By nature the worst will always rise to the top.
By that logic, we should still live under monarchies today.
People are not inherently evil. Your pessimism was indoctrinated into you, and you can be undoctrinated from that wrong view.
Are you kidding me? Look around you. How much evil do you need to see? As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them. This is all dreamworld bullshit
You're right better isn't and has never been possible everyone is evil and greedy and we should all just kill ourselves.
Edgy teenager nonsense. Grow up.
We have world historical leaps in life and happiness to back up what we're saying, while you just have mopey, navel gazing teenage bullshit about this fallen world and how people are shit, man.
Our beliefs are backed by experience, yours by learned helplessness.
As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them.
That's what the reeducation programs and firing squads are for.
This is vibes-based nihilism, not materialist analysis.
Desperately trying to justify your refusal to contribute to anything with boring fatalism. By that logic, we're all gonna die so why bother commenting?
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Me. Elect me!
as a young man, my dad worked as a mechanic in a small co op worker owned garage. Each week, the mechanics traded off managerial duties and were able to handle their business without much trouble. my dad had many jobs since then, but hes said that was probably the best job hes ever had.