Comments by "GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies14" (@guywholikesthesnarkies1435) on "Hakim"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
@pequenoperezoso3743 The NEP of the Soviet Union under Lenin is effectively a mixed economic policy in practice, one can't just take a strict doctrinal interpretation of ML and just goes along w. a narrow understanding of what "socialism" is. NEP in its implementation has always been intended as a workaround to the capitalist mode. Where the existing Marxist economic theory and ideas were applied to address and solve the contradictions of capitalism in a more practical and methodical way, rather than a radical approach to "abolish law of value" altogether.
Even the latter "collectivization" policy of Stalin is arguably a form of state monopoly capitalism in itself (just as Lenin intended), albeit an experimental one where the intent is to streamline and concentrate the market and its mechanism into a central command. Private and foreign enterprises still existed in place, but the State (the Party) simply has way more direct leverage into the economic analysis, planning and decision making. Thus, effectively making the domestic private entities a part of the State economy in practice, as well as forcing foreign companies to abide by the State's policies and rules.
If you somehow didn't notice it already from my previous argument in response to Op above, the role of local govts/party branch and SOEs coordinating together to foster the development and growth of the domestic sectors of the national economy, alongside the Central Govt. policy to force "competing" foreign business entities to operate through joint ventures w. domestic ones. Those essentially serve the same purpose as the Soviet's centrally-planned "Collectivization", albeit differently oriented and w/out the burdensome rigid central planning process.
The role of the Central Govt./CPC, therefore will be prioritized more on the core Marxist theoretical teaching, orientation and application to their own cadres. And in turn, the role of the rest of the 98 millions of CPC cadres is to supervise, coordinate, advise and discipline the relevant local govt. organs and entities e.g. local enterprises, institutions, other forms of NGOs and grasroot movements/initiatives. Rather than having to rigidly follow the direct central plan, instruction and order from the government.
Because it's more important to foster self-discipline and responsibility among them, in place of the relative bureaucratic independence due to the decentralized nature of the governance. A central planning and supervising mechanism remains in place, albeit it's made simplified and efficient thanks to the integration of technology and the IoT network system into the bureaucracy. And thus, allowing for a necessary degree of self-governance and independent decision making among regional and local level governments while also greatly reducing the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of a rigid centralized framework of governance and economic decision-making.
And last but not least, I highly suggest you read (or re-read) my lengthy direct response to Op's reply earlier on in order to understand my point here.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seversk13 "Colonialism and taking over market." Reads like a run-of-the-mill 'anti-revisionist' or some fifth column liberal talking point, usually by some White dude or any terminally online radlib, Trot or MLM ultra out there😬 Also, you can instead try looking for some proper studies out there, which reveal research data corroborating evidences in support of equal exchange assertion of China's bilateral trade with virtually every individual Global South country out there in this world. This is evidence of material reality that can't support the assertion of "Chinese colonialism" because one characteristic of colonialism is unequal exchange.
Furthermore, anyone who still thinks today that China's committing neocolonialism has glossed over the fact that most Global South countries are still under capitalist bourgeois dictatorship and liberal electoral democracy, respectively. This will result in capitalistic contradiction at domestic level, and inevitably will affect the dynamics of bilateral cooperation between each other. In other words, such contradictions are also partially the outcome of any self-interested bourgeois establishment to each individual country, conducting bilateral cooperation with China. At least, I can argue my refutation with confidence here as far as my own country's experience goes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@selaangel6225 I'll also add further information that I didn't manage to fit in my argument earlier. China "privatizing" its economy isn't what you think it is. China *is* developing and further expanding its own domestic private sectors. And as of 2020, China still held about +190,000 of state-owned enterprises in various forms of ownership, just that they've been seeing a shrinking size over the share of national GDP.
What's happening here is that many SOEs have been repurposed and reprioritized as an economic backbone for the smaller domestic enterprises to grow, either it's private enterprises or workers coops. Also, foreign companies will continue to operate and invest in China but their competitiveness has been greatly reduced because of the current policy force companies to form JV w. domestic companies, either w. SOEs or private ones.
This means that China has the leverage to acquire tech and patent transfer in order to develop and increase their own domestic economy, manufacturing capacity and wealth. Moreover, the success of its own competitive private sectors are thanks to the contribution of local govt. and SOEs leverage and coordination.
Ultimately, China didn't see private sectors as an antagonistic force but rather its *own * people at its core. With every potential to contribute and bring positive outcomes, but only when guided and assisted accordingly and properly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1