Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Is China Really Socialist?" video.

I would really enjoy a similar video on Vietnam, which while not a democratic state, does seem to follow socialism more closely than one would expect. The use of land leases (a back door LVT) and the high prevalence of CO-OPs in the Market place is particularly interesting.
2800
@Ruiseal I do mean Land Value tax, and a CO-OP, or cooperative, is a business owned by the employees.
170
@DrustZapat I would appreciate the overall comparison. The "Socialism" of each is quite distinct. Venezuela for instance nationalized oil, and then mainly used oil profits to buy goods and sell at subsidized rates. Cuba on the other hand had very limited resources, and under a command control economy focused on intellectual and labour investment through education and healthcare. Vietnam looks like an open market but heavy government intervention and strong CO-OP sector, while China has focused on Government companies and export lead growth. It's quite a diverse range of economic foundations.
33
@anubis2814 Was your comment removed? Thats a shame, it was well written.
11
@BarberJ95 Also, along side cuba, you may want to add the Kerala State in India to your list. Not a full country, but a very interesting case of a largely successful implementation of socialism on a sub-national level. Amd Bolivia has been so-so.
11
I think the existence of India and even Indonesia somewhat disproves this. I'm not supportive of the PPC, but obviously they have used successfully policies beyond being a big country.
7
Ya its such a pain that these terms are so relatively meaningless between poorly informed supporters and poorly informed opponents.
4
@anubis2814 odd I only see it when I look that you @ed me, not in the comments
4
@jeffbenton6183 I definitely agreethat an LVT isn't socialist per se, all though I think any reasonable market socialist policy would utilize one (although I think all economic systems would benefit so).
4
@LeftWingNationalist Interesting, I flip Communism and Socialism, because while countries like China and the USSR have Communist parties and aim toward a communist goal, they are officially Socialist. And Socialist ~ Society so social (government)ownership makes sense, vs communism ~ commune so the local commune (the workers) own the means directly. Why do you use the inverse?
4
@LeftWingNationalist I disagree, the Economic system of Fascism is National Syndicalism with a focus on Autarky (although much like many "socialist" or "capitalist" countries, this may be co-opted into an authoritarian regime not practicing the nominal system). Fascist also seperate people into groups, but this is based on area of economic engagement (agriculture, mining) and not class. However, the national rebirth and historic heroism myths are absolutely core aspects, as you say. Likewise the identification and solution to a "national problem" (although I don't think this problem has to be a population of scape goats). A correction to your comment, hyper inflation in Germany occured due to french occupation of the Rhine land industrial region and subsequent government sponsored strike, which destroyed German industrial output. The hyperinflation was nearly a decade before the great depression, although the economy was still increadibly weak at this time. I find the rightwing left wing labels not super useful, I would agree it generally targets right wing (blue color, lower income workers and rich industrialist) electorate, but remember many of the early fascists were formerly communists. Falange Española de las JONS leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: "[B]asically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile." while arguing that it was a thrid way ideology out side either left or right.
4
Maybe superficially, but I think it misses many of the key goals of Fascism; full self sufficiency in an economy, the idea of class conflict being replaced by corporatism (vs simple slavery type conditions), and a nationalistic devotion of the population generally built around a "rebirth" myth (Third Rich, New Roman Empire). Generally you might also see duplication of institutions (brown shirts or other paramilitary groups), populist support, and an extreme comfort with individual violence. State Capitalism is a part of Fascism, but they aren't interchable on my understanding (Although all these terms have been taken, weponized, and re-appropriated so many times as to be nearly meaningless).
3
@BarberJ95 I also appreciate the honesty in the name, If there is one thing being in a democratic country makes you appreciate, its political naming choices that are genuine. Gos a long way to building trust.
3
@derunfassbarebielecki I know it isn't perfect, but I tend to use Socialism to describe an economic system where the government owns the means of production for the benefit of society, and communism to describe a system where the workers own the means directly. I find this fits historical examples, and aligns with the idea of communism following socialism with the withering of the state. The distinction between state capitalism and Socialism then becomes how the output is distributed and the level of worker control in the work place.
3
@Niclas-ui1fh It's not perfect (there being no universally accepted definition) but I usually use the term socialism to refer to state ownership of the means of production, and communism to refer to direct worker control. That to me seems to align with what we have seen (USSR and China being "Socialist", Yugoslavia being Communist), along with the historical priorities of communist and socialist political parties, and the view of socialism developing into Communism with the "withering of the state". The line between socialism and State Capitalism I would argue has more to do the exploitive nature of the interaction (the work place organizational structure), the extent to which the workers output is meant for their own (class) consumption vs an administrative class or export, and potentially the extent to which a market is used that attempts to make a profit at sale
2
Norway isn't considered totalitarian, and I believe the state owns ~80% of non real estate wealth. I don't really disagree that monopoly power structures tend towards authoritarianism, but I don't think this is more true of socialist societies than those with a free and profit driven investment market. I think this apparent trend is really just a result of the fact that societies that have undergone collapse are susceptible to totalitarianism, and many "socialist" states undergo such a collapses leading to the "socialist party's" control.
2
@katoyoyo6454 That doesn't align with marxist writing, the goals of historical "Utopian communists", or fit the naming of states (in USSR for example an S stands for socialist, not Communist). I think your distinction mainly aligns with CIA propaganda messaging and the idea countries like Canada are socialist and good, while countries like China and Russia are communist and bad.
2
@ngolong4070 This is interesting to me. I am by no means an expert, and it's been a few years since I was "into" socialist ecomomies. Any interesting articles you'd throw my way?
2
@ngolong4070 I didn't think corruption was as big an issue. It's lower than China though, right? I actually kind of like that a fair part of the economy is informal, I would like to see that more in North America (food vendors, small scale farmers). And the resulting tax system. A reasonable amount of revenue also comes from state corperations, no? Thats cool. I know its not perfect, but it's one of the few countries outside the western world I'd consider moving to.
2
@derunfassbarebielecki I don't disagree with your experience or the nature of states such as USSR being corrupt and inequal. I think you miss understand how many union men/strikers died in Western countries over the life of the USSR though. But while the command control economies of eastern Europe were a failure, you do have examples such as Vietnam where the standard of living is higher than neighboring neoliberal states. I'd also consider Norway, as the government owns something like 80% of non real estate wealth through various wealth funds and public corperations. I'm not trying to support Socialism, just to understand it.
2
@jeffbenton6183 Hey, reply when ever, I'm always in the mood to discuss these things.
2
@SPACEMONKEY288 I don't think communism requires the end of money. Marx didn't suggest eliminating money was possible, and expressly made fun of "Utopian Marxists" who did. I think of communism simply as being the direct worker control, and the freedom of a worker to gain employment as they wish.
2
@Commie Monkey I don't disagree, and neither do they, but I think of all the countries which are officially Socialist it has been the most successful and has among the most interesting economic systems.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Well, I guess, first of all, I don't. I mean, do I learn from YouTube? Sure. But not Geo politics or economics. So why do I care? That's a genuinely interesting question. I suppose it's because I know Vietnam to be an exceptionally well run country. I mean, it's not Western Europe, but given the massive war in the last 50 years, and the state of the government/society prior to that, the success in advancing the nation is rare, to say the least. At the same time (being North American) the extent to which a free market is indoctrinated as the only reasonable course is unsettling at times. I mean, I fully support using a market economy and allowing free enterprise, but I also hate paying taxes. So, examples of countries that are able to demonstrate high GDP growth, with government corperations displacing a portion of tax revenue AND Land value collection displacing another portion is very interesting. I would like the general public to know more about such a system. And to see that competently operated government intervention can push forward that growth. Because the upcoming signs of a recession scare me, and I am well aware the solution to "supply chain shortages" is investing in more supply, not hiking interest rates.
1
@DRE_Talks I mean I don't know the creator that well, bur RIP
1
@tecumsehneo2174 I'm no linguist, but I do know some about China's ethic groups and certainly the geography and climate. I'm not trying to say the rise (resurrection) of china has not been impressive. But Vietnam has had at least a similar rise, without a equivalent jump in inequality (which is quite impressive considering it's political goals). And China has not been involved in an equivalent war; yes there was the century of humiliation but that wasn't as physically destructive as two world powers of the 1970s using your country as a battle ground. I will read that paper though.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Again, I doubt I would learn to much from the video, it's really more about what other people learn. I am not trying to disparage China's economic success, but it does seem to have come at a greater political cost, particularly personal freedoms, than Vietnams. You can say the PRC is 70 years old, but as a nation its thousands of years old, and honestly I think its success is less impressive than the failure of the Ming Dynasty is disappointing. I do think its misleading to say Vietnam had the support of the Chinese/USSR and the Americans though. The support was for killing and buring down the other half of the country, respectively. And after the war, support from both countries was non existent.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 Uuuummmm... I didn't mean to say I could learn more from this channel, I literally only am saying a lot of people do learn from this channel. So I would appreciate if it covered certain topics. Also, the Korean war was brutal. Only half the country has really recovered. The Vietnamese war was brutal also, but, where the socialist half of Korea is disgusting, the socialist half of Vietnam is the entire, beautifully run country. Like it's not a crime against China (not that I would care) to suggest another country has done something better. So you don't have to defend China.
1
@tecumsehneo2174 I mean, even the people who escape tend to confirm the sad reality. And while escaping, they get shot at, which, I mean, even the Amish allow you to compare the two life styles. Cuba has been under sanctions for longer, and I think I would rather live there. In general, if you have to make the people believe you're a god for economic policy to work, I have my concerns. Certainly it's possible North Korea could be successful in a few decades, it would really only take competant management.
1
@thajemm4371 It's when you let people who like driving cars get all the subsidies they want.
1
@indexpictures Marx never explicitly defined communism or socialism though, and used them largely interchangably.
1
@StetoGuy I think formally Fascism allows a mix of ownership types, with the important (in terms of labour relations) point being that the government mediates between workers and owners organizations while also influencing investment for national goals.
1
@StetoGuy I agree, but even large corperations, in my understanding, can be nominally privately owned. The states ability to dicate to them for set goals may exist, but that doesn't mean they are run by state bureaucrats or that the profits all directly go to the state. The state certainly could own these corperations, but fascism might require seperations to the concepts of control of the means of production and ownership of the means of production. I'd also say National Syndicalism is a sub component of Fascism, where fascism also includes a self sufficient Autarky and several other lesser requirements like a national rebirth myth, a cult leader personality, and a strong security state.
1
@StetoGuy Not all corperations are publicly traded though. Some are entirely owned by one person, others are owned by multiple people but but not on a public exchange. Amd even publicly traded corperations have shares that are privately owned. I understand your point of differentiation though. A society where all corperations are publicly traded, and the majority shares are owned by average people or pension funds is different. I do think the seperation is useful. For example, I own my home, but I can't build a factory or turn the inside into a shop because I'm not in control. I suppose you could strech that and say I don't own it, but I think the argument that any regulation means ownership is impossible quickly becomes meaningless. Likewise, private individuals could own a pharmacompany, but that doesn't mean using the war measures act in the US to meet certain output means they have lost ownership, only control. I still disagree that Fascism is equivalent to National Syndicalism, but I do agree it is highly connected.
1
@LeftWingNationalist Part of the invasion was to expand Germany East ao that full self sufficientcy could be reached, the infamous elbow room. I'd also quickly argue that the Nazis were not truely Fascist, but rather this was a lable slapped on by the British to mean bad guys. In general the Nazi system did not meet requirements in the Fascists manifesto.
1
@StetoGuy I believe Dyson is solely owned by James Dyson. I know a corperation is a legal entity, but you can own 100% shares of an LLC. It's just not generally smart to own more than you meed for voting, better to diversify. I hear what your saying about ownership, but I think practically the outcome of that statement is all wealth in the world is owned by the government, because I know of no governments which are explicitly forbidden from passing regulation on usage or raising taxes. Nominal ownership does exist within these systems, and for the most part that means a level of control, and certainly means being allowed to collect a profit from the business operations.
1