And don't get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: "Moscow Never Sleeps." Do you think that’s just because people there don't feel like sleeping? ...))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Okay, let's make it 12—is that alright?)))
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
"I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc."
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because... well, simply because... When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn't the second-largest economy in the world...
What do you have to say to that?
Yes, I'll take a look.
In China, there are capitalist owners, some of them immensely wealthy. However, the government is not controlled by them, but by the working class through the Communist Party.
There’s a reason why China routinely gives death sentences to corrupt politicians, why it’s the manufacturer of 95% of the world’s supply of solar panels despite the existence of oil oligarchs on Earth, why housing prices go down instead of up, and why it was interested in and capable of uplifting 800mn people from poverty into a relatively comfortable life.
I was recently banned from Reddit—they really don't like people like me over there. Anyway: there was a very extensive discussion on the matter. But I wasn't banned because of China.
I happened to see your “)))”
))))))
By the way, I actually had to explain to some people what that meant. I'm really glad you're in the loop! ¡No pasarán!✊ )))
Hey, are you a Russian communist?
I come from a place where people only speak about this in whispers.
I read your latest posts—yes, that is exactly what you are talking about there.
If so, I’d be very interested in asking you some questions if you don’t mind :)
OK
Thanks, Comrade—I'll check it out!
Once I get a little more settled in here and get to know the locals better, we can pick up our fascinating conversation... )))
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist's profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any "surplus" consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
There is another name for this: private ownership of the means of production.
The means of production constitute the aggregate of all material resources used to create goods and services. They comprise two main components: the instruments of labor (the tools and machinery used to work) and the subjects of labor (the raw materials and inputs worked upon).
This concept also encompasses wage labor. Under socialism, a private individual is not permitted to hire another person for employment.
However, during the Stalin era, private enterprise did, in fact, exist. These took the form of artels—small workshops, typically employing up to ten people, that manufactured light industrial goods. There were tens of thousands of such artels across the USSR. Yet, within these artels, both the workers and the managers participated on equal terms; specifically, the director of the artel was re-elected annually by the collective membership. Artels in the USSR produced items such as radio receivers, televisions, children's toys, and similar goods.
I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.
As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.
And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to... $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.
Places where the oligarchs' massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.
Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!
No, Comrade, I am speaking of the Western understanding of Marx.
I'll read your article first, and then we'll talk.