Comment on For me, it's going to be Fediverse or nothing
Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 12 hours agoYour ideology doesn’t have any allies then. It’s used in Cuba and in North Korea. That’s all.
In Cuba, they are losing ground because the people don’t want the government to have a monopoly on labour.
North Korea is kim’s paradise
Your only hope is to brand china communist. But are they?
“The private sector already accounts for over 60% of GDP, 70% of technological innovation, and, more potently, employs over 80% of the workforce across the country’s urban cities.”
queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 hours ago
In both Cuba and the DPRK they’ve been under a brutal siege war from the United States since the revolution, don’t pretend like they struggle for no reason. There are certainly problems, but they can be laid firmly at the feet of the US empire and its proxies.
But the US won’t be around forever and BRICS is opening the world economy to them. They endured a near century of humiliation and its finally coming to an end, I’m excited to see how they develop without a US boot on their necks! Aren’t you?
As for China, I was skeptical about the Dengist reforms. It’s like you said, they boosted private sector development and investment. The created billionaires. They allowed for heightened exploitation of workers. They suppressed Maoists.
They proved politics are still in command with Zero COVID, though. Ever since China’s heroic pandemic response I am optimistic that the private sector is subordinate. They’re willing and able to tell their billionaires “no” and force them to obey.
See, the purpose of the Dengist reforms was to develop China’s economy as fast as possible while avoiding Western retaliation, like what happens to every other communist country that becomes the subject of endless siege and proxy warfare, and it worked. Unlike under capitalism where the anarchy of the market dictates production, China has its productive capacity firmly under the control of the government. They still issue marching orders to the private sector and they centrally plan their development.
China is now a world leader in technological innovation and is critical to the global supply chain as a key node of production. As much as Trump wants to do a trade war he’s more likely to hurt the US than to actually hurt China. China is still dominated by the capitalist mode of production, like you said, but since the Party remains in command they’ll be able to abolish the market entirely without fear of Western retaliation. Capitalism is just a stage of development, after all.
Also, don’t ignore Vietnam. They have been on a similar trajectory as China, developing their economy and integrating themselves into the supply chain, and now they’re growing closer with China with every new idiot tariff imposed by Trump.
I find that “”“social democrats”“” are just pessimists. You think revolution never works and communism always fails, and so you retreat into reformism and liberalism. I still have revolutionary optimism, though, which means I don’t even need to win this argument. I’m certain that you’ll see that I’m right soon enough. ☺️
Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
So you agree that capitalism is the best way to develop a country. So, capitalism is good? It relocates everytime to a poorer country. Developing that country.
At the end, the whole world will be developed. I’m not an anarchist, so I’m quite fond of governments creating stability in their region. (Not a revolutionary indeed).
North Korea and Cuba joining globalist trade is fine by me. Cuba already sends out their doctors abroad.
Cuba trades a lot with Spain and China.
Problem though. Their doctors would earn more money in other Latin American countries. Which they often do. They emigrate to one of those countries and then have their family live a luxurious life in Havana.
This is because in those other countries, even though same level of wealth, they are self employed as doctors. They get the entire fruits of their labour :)
Competition is very important. Just like you don’t want Elon musk to be a monopolist, you don’t want a government to be a monopolist either. Competition is necessary.
I don’t know much about Vietnam, so I didn’t talk about them. Their language makes me go insane not gonna lie 🥲
I did watch documentaries about Cuba though, so talking a bit more about that.
I’m not a fan of revolutions. Look at Libya and Syria. Revolutions aren’t good.
If you want to do a revolution, you better accept to live a full generation in pure poverty in the hope that your children will have it better.
Then compare it to a place that has been having stability in the same period.
The place with stability will be stronger on the global scene most likely. Such as Switzerland Vs the rest of Europe that were involved in world war 2.
Stability means growth.
You view me as a pessimist and I view you as a pessimist. You see no other way out than revolution.
I can assure you, in my day to day life I am the optimist. My wife’s rather pessimistic aha.
Like when trump crashed the market and I pumped it full. My wife was like “you’re having a baby, you need to be careful”.
Right now the stocks look green af.
I’m saying I’mma take a 100k euros mortgage.
She’s like “we’re having a baby, can you even afford that?”
Tsk tsk tsk 🌝
queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
You should read How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, capitalism didn’t help them at all. They were intentionally deprived of industrial and intellectual property that would allow them to build up their own means of production – underdeveloped by capitalism — and intentionally kept at a lower stage of development to superexploit the workers and extract superprofits.
Flag independence and so-called decolonization didn’t mean freedom to develop either, now under neocolonialism the same underdevelopment takes place. Libya and Syria are just more examples of the same neocolonial agenda, to underdevelop nations and force them to be subservient to the imperial core. Those weren’t revolutions, they were Western dirty wars: coup the government, pour in weapons to fuel whatever terrorist groups are willing to work with the West, sanction the people to make the economy scream, etc. etc.
So, no, capitalism wasn’t the best way to develop any of those countries.
The reason China needed to use capitalism to develop was solely to fool the West into doing business. There’s a saying attributed to Lenin; “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” That’s all China has done. Not only did the capitalist sell them the rope, the capitalists also sold them the rope factories and outsourced every step of rope production.
China was never capitalists. They’re communists wearing the flayed skin of capitalism to trick it into lowering its guard.
Capitalism also isn’t developing the imperial core anymore. We have reached a stage of deindustrialization, where now instead of building up infrastructure and production capacity we’re letting capital strip the wiring from the walls to maximize cost cutting without actually developing anything. There is some development that still happens thanks to government grants and public institutions, but now Musk is cutting those too to “save money”. Thanks to rampant privatization and austerity everything is worse.
And of course there’s no popular support here in the West, this is the imperial core. We grew fat and rich off of the superprofits from imperialism, revolution would mean a redistribution of wealth from the imperial core to the periphery. That means Europe and Canada and the US will have to pay repairations for what they have done to the world. I don’t expect that to be popular here!
Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 7 hours ago
Oh yeah, after Congo got independence from Belgium. Their purchasing power reduced to not even 10% of what it was at 1960 at the time of 1979.
Right now Congo is being “neocolonised” by China.
…india.com/…/viral-video-of-chinese-employers-ass…
South Africa however is a whole different story. They are the most inequal country in the world.
Africa has a median net wealth per adult of 1250 USD. Mean is 8400 USD.
For South Africa this is 5200 USD median and 25000 usd average.
The approach in Congo was a lot more revolutionary while in South Africa it was reformist. In Congo, any Belgian was forcibly deported and many were murdered. In South Africa there are still a lot of descendants from dutchies.
I believe that China’s investment in Congo will be good for Congo, as most investments are.
The Belgian investments were to extract raw resources from the country. But these railroads and trains are still being used today.
Nobody really wants to help Congo unless they get financially rewarded for it. Congo is quite a scary place too, for business. All that instability?
Revolutions = instability = capital flight = poverty
We’ll see what happens. The west developed China. Now it’s China’s turn to develop Africa. About time too, fucking hell, we’re so close to Africa. Become developed so that we can do meaningful trade.
The investments in china have been tremendously rewarding.
You and I view China very different. You might view them as Buddhism and the west as Christian.
But I view Europe as Judaism. America as Christianity and china as islam. 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0
The same thing, just different branding. It’s all capitalism.