China

[Gulliver Foyle]

Well, time and an increasingly autocratic leader that is chasing away foreign investment.

Well given that building ghost towns was thirty percent of the Chinese economy in the "good times", the country was in for a right land no matter what. But there's been strong indications from at least the 2000's that the Chinese economy has never been as large as either the CCP or the markets have been claiming. I remember reading an in-depth article from before the 2008 crash where, looking at energy usage trends, a Singaporean ecomonist estimated that the Chinese ecomony was about 25% smaller than claimed. Unfortunately I lost the article between moves and computer changes, because it was interesting and its citations were robust.

 

[Doubt]

Well given that building ghost towns was thirty percent of the Chinese economy in the "good times", the country was in for a right land no matter what. But there's been strong indications from at least the 2000's that the Chinese economy has never been as large as either the CCP or the markets have been claiming. I remember reading an in-depth article from before the 2008 crash where, looking at energy usage trends, a Singaporean ecomonist estimated that the Chinese ecomony was about 25% smaller than claimed. Unfortunately I lost the article between moves and computer changes, because it was interesting and its citations were robust.

Been around a few cities in China over the years. Made a couple of trips to Tangshan in 2016. The whole place was leveled in the mid 70s by an earthquake. They rebuilt with the usual crappy Soviet designed apartment buildings they already had before.

In the 2000s, they started building a lot of modern apartment buildings. New sections of the city and all. These were glass and steel towers with no balconies or other ways to see what the occupation rates were like.

In the mean time, all the old apartment buildings still seemed to have 100% occupancy, based on the balconies. None of the people I was working with seemed to live in those places. Although all the engineers now had their own cars, however. Their driving ability was another issue.....

 

[lomiller]

SO maybe the CCP is a Communist Party after all, with the usual CP level of economic sucess?

Competence more that Communism IMO. The current regimes highly successful predecessor was just as Communist.

IMO China needed to start turning up it's domestic consumer market and consumption a decade ago. Instead they decided to double down on exports and programs intended to enhance their geopolitical power. Lack of individual freedom is starting to limit China's growth as well.

Overall they have done a good job of transitioning people from poverty to what would be lower middle class in the west. Now the challenge is to lift a substantial portion of that lower middle class into the upper middle class, and they are failing at it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China doesn't trust its people with money

 

[Ziggurat]

China doesn't trust its people with money

FTFY.

 

[dudalb]

Competence more that Communism IMO. The current regimes highly successful predecessor was just as Communist.

IMO China needed to start turning up it's domestic consumer market and consumption a decade ago. Instead they decided to double down on exports and programs intended to enhance their geopolitical power. Lack of individual freedom is starting to limit China's growth as well.

Overall they have done a good job of transitioning people from poverty to what would be lower middle class in the west. Now the challenge is to lift a substantial portion of that lower middle class into the upper middle class, and they are failing at it.

And I maintain that is the inevitable result of pure Maxist ideology.
I get so tired of this "Communism is a wonderful idea, only problem is the right people have not tried it yet" nonsense.
Best brief comment on Commuism I have seen: "Beautiful Theory, Wrong Species".

 

[lomiller]

And I maintain that is the inevitable result of pure Maxist ideology.
I get so tired of this "Communism is a wonderful idea, only problem is the right people have not tried it yet" nonsense.
Best brief comment on Commuism I have seen: "Beautiful Theory, Wrong Species".

IMO Marxist ideology would do the opposite and focus on producing items for domestic consumption rather than export. It probably wouldn't produce the goods and services people really want because that's a major problem with command economies, but producing for domestic consumption seems like a consistent Marxist priority.

China's issue is that they are prioritizing geopolitical power over developing their local consumer markets, and that's more authoritarian and Fascist in nature than Marxist.

 

[theprestige]

IMO Marxist ideology would do the opposite and focus on producing items for domestic consumption rather than export. It probably wouldn't produce the goods and services people really want because that's a major problem with command economies, but producing for domestic consumption seems like a consistent Marxist priority.

China's issue is that they are prioritizing geopolitical power over developing their local consumer markets, and that's more authoritarian and Fascist in nature than Marxist.

AFAICT, orthodox Marxism postulates a global socialist revolution, after which all production would be in a sense domestic. Absent international socialism, however, nations which wish to organize along Marxist lines must settle for a national socialism. Which ends up looking rather statist and totalitarian.

That said, I see no reason why a socialist nation cannot (in theory) abolish capitalism domestically, manage the nation's means of production via a workers' collective, and still trade capitalistically with capitalist nations.

If one of China's chief assets is a cheap workforce, it seems to me they could certainly organize their domestic production to optimize trade with capitalist nations along those lines. And it seems to me that they could do so in a socialist fashion.

 

[lomiller]

AFAICT, orthodox Marxism postulates a global socialist revolution, after which all production would be in a sense domestic. Absent international socialism, however, nations which wish to organize along Marxist lines must settle for a national socialism. Which ends up looking rather statist and totalitarian.

That said, I see no reason why a socialist nation cannot (in theory) abolish capitalism domestically, manage the nation's means of production via a workers' collective, and still trade capitalistically with capitalist nations.

If one of China's chief assets is a cheap workforce, it seems to me they could certainly organize their domestic production to optimize trade with capitalist nations along those lines. And it seems to me that they could do so in a socialist fashion.

Cheap labor is advantageous when you are trying to raise peasant farmers to the ranks of the lower middle class, but that's where it tops out. If you want to raise the working poor into the ranks of the middle and upper-middle class you need to move on from the low pay industrial jobs and into higher value occupations.

 

[theprestige]

Cheap labor is advantageous when you are trying to raise peasant farmers to the ranks of the lower middle class, but that's where it tops out. If you want to raise the working poor into the ranks of the middle and upper-middle class you need to move on from the low pay industrial jobs and into higher value occupations.

Orthodox Marxism gets rid of wages and classes, so I don't have any idea where you're trying to go with this.

Where I was trying to go is, it seems to me that a nation can organize itself along socialist lines, even if much of its economy is involved with capitalist trading partners.

In fact, it seems to me that in theory a Marxist state would have a competitive advantage in manufacturing, since its workforce would have discarded the inefficiency and wastefulness that come with class warfare, conspicuous consumption, and all the other baggage of late-stage capitalism.

Remember, orthodox Marxism isn't trying to raise the working poor into the ranks of the middle class. It's abolishing class and poverty altogether. There's no such thing as "working poor" in a Marxist society. There's just workers. And there's no such thing as poverty, either, not unless the entire collective is all poor together. Which, in theory, should never happen.

 

[The Atheist]

China doesn't trust its people with money

Nah, that's not true - they trust them 100%.

A few weeks of re-education of Jack Ma and the people with money know exactly what to do and not do.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Cheap labor is advantageous when you are trying to raise peasant farmers to the ranks of the lower middle class, but that's where it tops out. If you want to raise the working poor into the ranks of the middle and upper-middle class you need to move on from the low pay industrial jobs and into higher value occupations.

Well, assuming that, by the time they get oriented to take on those higher value occupations, they haven't become old hat and low paying. Sorta like industrial supply did...

There's also the brain drain. They can produce people capable of high-value occupations. And they move to where those jobs already are.

 

[theprestige]

Well, assuming that, by the time they get oriented to take on those higher value occupations, they haven't become old hat and low paying. Sorta like industrial supply did...

There's also the brain drain. They can produce people capable of high-value occupations. And they move to where those jobs already are.

It's funny how difficult it can be, to lock the "from each according to their ability" folks into a "to each according to their need" regime. Capitalism, at least, strives to reward them handsomely if they decide to stick around.

 

[lomiller]

Orthodox Marxism gets rid of wages and classes,

China hasn't been Marxist in decades.

In fact, it seems to me that in theory a Marxist state would have a competitive advantage in manufacturing,

Low productivity manufacturing jobs are only advantageous when compared to the even lower productivity of peasant farmers. It doesn't matter what your political system is, this remains true.

 

[theprestige]

China hasn't been Marxist in decades.

Agreed. I was responding to the idea that a Marxist state cannot trade with capitalist states and remain Marxist. I don't think that idea is correct. I think China could organize its means of production along Marxist lines, and still trade its products with capitalist nations. Obviously it hasn't, but I think it could. In theory, anyway.

I gave the example of a large, low cost labor force, as something a Marxist China could trade with other nations. Obviously the class warfare problems inherent in an underclass of working poor wouldn't apply to the hypothetical Marxist China I'm talking about.

Low productivity manufacturing jobs are only advantageous when compared to the even lower productivity of peasant farmers. It doesn't matter what your political system is, this remains true.

Nobody is talking about a low productivity workforce. China's competitive advantage is a large low cost workforce. This advantage manifests as a workforce that is highly productive, relative to its cost.

And it seems to me that a low cost labor force is exactly the kind thing a Marxist state should produce and offer for trade on the global market. China already does this, just without the Marxism.

 

[lomiller]

Nobody is talking about a low productivity workforce. China's competitive advantage is a large low cost workforce. This advantage manifests as a workforce that is highly productive, relative to its cost.

And it seems to me that a low cost labor force is exactly the kind thing a Marxist state should produce and offer for trade on the global market. China already does this, just without the Marxism.

Most industrial jobs are inherently low productivity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the work force. You want higher standards of living you need to move away from these low productivity jobs and towards higher productivity jobs.

 

[theprestige]

Most industrial jobs are inherently low productivity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the work force. You want higher standards of living you need to move away from these low productivity jobs and towards higher productivity jobs.

Higher standards of living are a decadent myth perpetuated by the bourgeoisie and their capitalist puppet masters. They are unsustainable and morally depraved.

You keep missing the part where I'm talking about a hypothetical Marxist state. Regardless of the overall productivity of the jobs a society offers, a Marxist society should be able to provide laborers who do that job at a lower cost. Because Marxist laborers aren't hung up on capitalist things like personal wealth, conspicuous consumption, class warfare, etc.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Higher standards of living are a decadent myth perpetuated by the bourgeoisie and their capitalist puppet masters. They are unsustainable and morally depraved.

Not only that, they are harmful to the consumers and to the planet. China's rising standard of living is the biggest threat to the World since Western nations did it.

You keep missing the part where I'm talking about a hypothetical Marxist state. Regardless of the overall productivity of the jobs a society offers, a Marxist society should be able to provide laborers who do that job at a lower cost. Because Marxist laborers aren't hung up on capitalist things like personal wealth, conspicuous consumption, class warfare, etc.

Exactly right. Being less well off than Westerners hasn't made Chinese goods less attractive, in fact quite the opposite.

I just found out about a Chinese manufacturer of CRT TVs that only cost US$31 each, and they sell replacement circuit boards for just $7. Incredible. Nobody in the West has made TVs of any kind for decades, and second-hand CRTs getting rare (in case you are wondering, CRTs are preferred over LCDs by retro gamers for their faster response and more 'period accurate' display).

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

China hasn't been Marxist in decades.


Low productivity manufacturing jobs are only advantageous when compared to the even lower productivity of peasant farmers. It doesn't matter what your political system is, this remains true.

None of the Soviet states ever were, with the possible exception of War Communism during the Russian civil war.

 

[lomiller]

None of the Soviet states ever were, with the possible exception of War Communism during the Russian civil war.

China's (and Russia's) current system of crony capitalism and expansionist nationalism resembles Fascism far more than it does Communism or Socialism.