As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
My very original statement was about the fact regulated markets makes sense as an instrument in an economy, and as long as they are ultimately controlled to work to the benefit for the people, they are a useful instrument. I am strongly against the idea that markets are the ultimate ordering principle for society. If by “capitalism” you mean this, then sure, I am against capitalism. But this extreme free market capitalism has a name - neoliberalism. I’m against neoliberalism, because it leads to inequality and fascism.
I don’t see where we even disagree, except for how to call certain combinations and variations of features in an economy. Honestly, I don’t believe how to call it is so important except for the fact we agree on the actual meaning behind the practical outcome.
China has always been a syncretic culture that is really good at incorporating various elements that make sense in a holistic way into their culture. They digested socialism just as they digested capitalism and just as they digested Buddhism when it was new.
In any case thanks for your links, I’m currently reading a survey about China (not focused on only the last century), so this can complement my reading.
First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That’s not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.
Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.
Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn’t a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn’t have a socialist revolution.
As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won’t be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.
You’re welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You’ll be able to better understand the USSR, it’s strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.
No worries. Yeah, you came off as somewhat hostile, or maybe I mixed you up with the other commenter.
What is annoying on Lemmy (this does not apply to you) are the cliche “tankies” who immediately accuse everyone who is not of their opinion to be a fascist or support fascism. That for sure won’t help the cause of educating the proletariat.
Paradoxically, such people are pushing many just ignorant or centrist-minded people towards the right, and this does a great disservice to the left basically everywhere, rubbing people under their nose how they are supposedly wrong or bad (not saying that there are no people with truly horrible and wrong views, just saying you for sure won’t convince them that way).
I think the left should not only study socialism/Marxism/etc, but also much more psychology. Being or feeling right is easy, convincing others - that’s the hard part, and most left movements are really bad at their “marketing”, while the fascists have nothing to offer, but are better at PR. It’s a frustrating state of affairs.
Thanks for staying civil and constructive.
I don’t really blame many of the Marxists here for being short on patience, much of the arguments we have are the same exact arguments we’ve had day after day. I do think patience tends to be more useful in dialogue, but I also can’t expect everyone else to uphold that.
Take care!