Bird nails it

[lighthorseman]

YOU KNOW HOW WHEN YOU SAY, “CHINA IS COMMUNIST,” SOMEONE ALWAYS CORRECTS YOU AND SAYS “ACTUALLY, CHINA HAS INSTITUTED A LOT OF CAPITALIST POLICIES SINCE MAO’S DEATH AND THAT’S HOW THEY’VE SHOWN SUCH A FREAKISH INCREASE IN GDP, AND BLAH BLAH BLAH”? IT’S NOT LIKE THEY’RE WRONG. THAT’S QUITE TRUE. BUT CHINA’S STILL COMMUNIST, RIGHT? MY QUESTION IS, WHY CAN’T WE DO THE REVERSE? A CAPITALIST COUNTRY THAT ADOPTS CERTAIN LIMITED COMMUNIST POLICIES TO FIX VARIOUS PROBLEMS? OR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT? AMERICA IS A VERY YOUNG EXPERIMENT. WE’VE BEEN AROUND FOR WHAT? 250 YEARS, GIVE OR TAKE? CHINA IS LIKE, A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. SO ARE A LOT OF OTHER COUNTRIES. THINGS CHANGE.

UNRESTRICTED FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM IS POINTLESS SINCE IT COMPLETELY IGNORES A WIDE RANGE OF SOCIAL NECESSITIES, AND YOU CAN’T RUN A COUNTRY BY IGNORING THE PEOPLE IN IT. WHY NOT TRY TO PIECEMEAL SOMETHING NEW FROM THE EXISTING STRUCTURES WE’VE ALREADY SEEN IN ACTION AND ADD THEM TO OUR OWN? REMOVE WHAT DOESN’T BENEFIT US. WHEN YOU START A SMALL BUSINESS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU LOOK AROUND AND SEE WHAT’S WORKING FOR YOUR COMPETITION AND WHAT ISN’T AND STRUCTURE YOUR BUSINESS ACCORDINGLY, YES? THAT’S ALL I’M SAYING. SOMETHING NEW. THE BEST OF WHAT’S OUT THERE.

OBVIOUSLY WE NEED SOME ’SOCIALIST’ POLICIES TO ENSURE OUR CITIZENS DON’T DIE IN THE STREETS AND TO HELP HEAL THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE. BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE, EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE ARE STANDARD IN 90% OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD. WHY NOT HERE? DON’T TELL ME IT’S SOME SORT OF DEFINITE BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE. WE’RE THE MOST ADVANCED COUNTRY ON EARTH AND WE’RE SACRIFICING DEMOCRACY AND DECENCY FOR SOME SORT OF “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” ECONOMIC TANTRUM WHEN WHAT WE’RE DOING IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING. WE DON’T HAVE TO PULL A 180. WE JUST NEED TO STOP BEING STUPID AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD DO THE MOST AMOUNT OF GOOD FOR THE LARGEST AMOUNT PEOPLE AND THEN MAKE IT WORK.

THERE. NOW IT’S YOUR TURN. HOWEVER, IF YOU QUOTE SOME IDIOTIC UNFACT YOU HEARD ON FOX NEWS I WILL SHIT RIGHT ON YOUR FINGER. I’M NOT JOKING.

animalstalkinginallcaps.tumblr.com/post/11911691824/claire-you-said-your-two-cents-its-my-turn

Really time people got over their weird obsession that socialism=teh EBIL!

[Dragon Zachski]

Good fucking soil that hurts my eyes to read.

But it's true.

[Shane for Wax]

It's a miniature YELLING BIRD!

[largeham]

China is not communist. They have a Communist Party, but they claim the country is socialist. I personally don't call them socialist because:
A) the country is just plain capitalist with the government holding a large monopoly
B) their rhetoric (if not actions) are based on the peasantry, not workers

That said, this bird is wrong. Socialism=/= welfare state, something we saw stripped away in the late 70s/early 80s. And what s/he seems to be proclaiming is a return to it.

[Tenfold_Maquette]

Oct 28, 2011 4:01:16 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

HOWEVER, IF YOU QUOTE SOME IDIOTIC UNFACT YOU HEARD ON FOX NEWS I WILL SHIT RIGHT ON YOUR FINGER. I’M NOT JOKING.

More statements need to end in this, just saying.

[Sandafluffoid]

Oct 28, 2011 4:13:46 GMT -5 largeham said:

China is not communist. They have a Communist Party, but they claim the country is socialist. I personally don't call them socialist because:
A) the country is just plain capitalist with the government holding a large monopoly
B) their rhetoric (if not actions) are based on the peasantry, not workers.

Eh? The ascendency of the peasantry in Maoist ideology was never too fully implemented on a wider scale in the CCP, it was primarily only the Khmer Rouge who supported the peasants over the workers, I mean it was not the workers starving to death in the Great Leap Forward.

Nowadays anyway there is almost no evidence of the peasant in CCP rhetoric, like most asian communist parties they have reverted to a more nationalist base for support, the same line about "ordinary working [NATIONALITY]" that every far-right party has used at some point (and the CCP is very much a far-right party now, this country is a pure capitalism in a way that America simply cannot claim to be).

[lighthorseman]

I thought the peasantry were considered equals of the workers... hence the sickle in "hammer and sickle"?

[Dragon Zachski]

Oct 28, 2011 13:11:05 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I thought the peasantry were considered equals of the workers... hence the sickle in "hammer and sickle"?

I think the main issue is that they should be considered the equals of the workers. But aren't necessarily equals.

Just like the T and sometimes the B in LGBT are not really considered equal with the L and the G, even though they should be considered equals.

[Old Viking]

"Your Majesty, the peasants are revolting."

"I know that, you fool!"

[largeham]

Oct 28, 2011 8:33:03 GMT -5 Sandafluffoid said:

Eh? The ascendency of the peasantry in Maoist ideology was never too fully implemented on a wider scale in the CCP, it was primarily only the Khmer Rouge who supported the peasants over the workers, I mean it was not the workers starving to death in the Great Leap Forward.

Nowadays anyway there is almost no evidence of the peasant in CCP rhetoric, like most asian communist parties they have reverted to a more nationalist base for support, the same line about "ordinary working [NATIONALITY]" that every far-right party has used at some point (and the CCP is very much a far-right party now, this country is a pure capitalism in a way that America simply cannot claim to be).

Afterwards maybe, but he rejected the proletariat in favour of the poorer peasantry¹, Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan shows his support of the peasantry as a revolutionary base.

Oct 28, 2011 13:11:05 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I thought the peasantry were considered equals of the workers... hence the sickle in "hammer and sickle"?

Oct 28, 2011 13:21:24 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I think the main issue is that they should be considered the equals of the workers. But aren't necessarily equals.

Just like the T and sometimes the B in LGBT are not really considered equal with the L and the G, even though they should be considered equals.

Nothing like that. The Bolsheviks realised that in 1917 most of Russia still operated on a feudal basis, with most of the economy based on agriculture. So they decided to appeal to the poorer peasantry as allies to help the workers. There are a few reasons why Marx dismisses the peasantry as a base for revolution:
A) geographically they don't have the density the workers do in cities, where the seats of power are based,
B) they own capital and land, and therefore it is not in their interests to see the means of production held by everyone (this is the basis of the accusation that they are ideologically backwards).

Then come the arguments, Trotskyists claim that Stalin and Bukharin gave too much support to the peasantry, then Marxist-Leninsts call Trotskyists 'ultra-leftists' and so on.

¹ Peasantry as used throughout my reply refers to small farmers, i.e. those that still hold land and capital. Your general farmhands are workers.

[ltfred]

This is a bit silly. I'd say that a Norway-style social democratic capitalism would be fine- no need for this pinko talk of communism.

[MaybeNever]

But Norwegians are the worst sort of communists: foreign communists. The only sort of communism that's worse than that is domestic communism.

[ltfred]

Oct 30, 2011 2:56:20 GMT -5 MaybeNever said:

But Norwegians are the worst sort of communists: foreign communists. The only sort of communism that's worse than that is domestic communism.

There's communism and there's COMMUNISM!!!!!!

[Wykked Wytch]

I might be generally in favor of capitalism, but I also like public roads, national parks, public schools, social security, and (hopefully sometime in the future) universal healthcare. The government's job is to protect its citizens, but it shouldn't interfere unnecessarily in the affairs of businesses. (By "unnecessarily", I mean for any reason that does not pertain to protecting other parties.)