People trained in Marxian economics tend to understand capitalism better than stidents of mainstream capitalist economics. China’s using capitalism for what it’s good for - expanding the producive force of the economy, figuring out how to make new products efficiently, and making wide variety of consumer goods. The state still retains control over the capitalist sectors throurh various means. It also owns strategic sectors like banks, etc. The state is controlled via the CCP with membership of over 10% of the pop and growing. It’s an open question whether they’re gonna lose control over the capitalist sector or not but so far it’s subordinate to the state. In capitalist economies the state (and democracy} tend to be subordinate to capital.
This is one of those troubles with the whole “communist” and “capitalist” things. None of them are actually truly what they say they are.
China and USSR started competing hard core on the global scale in the capitalism games, and lets be honest, look at China now and it’s fully on the capitalism train while still calling communist.
But that isn’t to say the US is any better on the capitalism wagon. The US is quite happy to drop capitalism if a company desires it. This is where we get our "too big to fail"s or companies that are given “loans” during the pandemic that they never have to pay back.
It’s almost like the terms are a joke by the upper echelon to fuck with the rest of us.
Hence my radical preference: “a la carte” economic systems. Shameless capitalism, frothing communism, anarchism, authoritarian technocracy, even theocratic systems, they all excel in certain sectors and not others. Sometimes, in nutty combinations.
So why idealize one?
A “mix” has been reality for a long time, anyway, but I think that should be embraced more explicitly. Get systems where they’re good instead of shoehorning them where they’re horrific.
I figure that mixing is a good idea, and that was the basis of the “Universal Living” economic system that I have been writing up over the years. Universal Basic Income and socialism is great for establishing a foundation that people can rely upon, but it sucks at offering things that make people unique. Capitalism is terrific at making people into unique individuals, but is horrific at ensuring their basic wellbeing.
As such, socialism should be used to ensure everyone has decent necessities and stability, while money should solely be used for luxury things. Everyone gets a house, but you use money for a bigger house. A basic car is free, but a bigger gas guzzler has to be bought. If the basic car is damaged, just trade it in to the government and get a fresh one - the government keeps the old universal car, either repairing it back into service or scrapping it. Healthcare for most things are free, but cosmetic beautification like butt lifts, cost money. Ozempic is free, because less obesity is good across the board. And so on.
IMO, free basic goods and services would also help regulate the pricing of capitalist luxury, because they are competing against free. That makes it harder to rip off society. Also, if everyone has what they need, they aren’t blackmailed into working for bad corporations or breaking themselves to survive. Work, is just to earn money for cool things in life, but isn’t strictly required. People work by choice.
This translates into people pursuing aspects of life that best suit them - be it a specific career, helping their family, participating in the community, or creating arts. This is more optimal than the forced work of capitalism.
Maoist but in name only, as the hardcore Maoists in Mainland China and elsewhere are balking at how the country has become, a hegemony set to replace another.
Idk how people think China is communist when they have for-profit hospitals, that’s like one of the biggest no-nos in communism lol.
Even the public hospitals are incentivized towards profit optimizing through over-prescription of medication (or useless stuff like homeopathy) in my experience. But last time I went through Chinese healthcare was all the way back in 2017, so things may have improved now (but I doubt it.)
Also crazy that a communist country would master capitalism.
People trained in Marxian economics tend to understand capitalism better than stidents of mainstream capitalist economics. China’s using capitalism for what it’s good for - expanding the producive force of the economy, figuring out how to make new products efficiently, and making wide variety of consumer goods. The state still retains control over the capitalist sectors throurh various means. It also owns strategic sectors like banks, etc. The state is controlled via the CCP with membership of over 10% of the pop and growing. It’s an open question whether they’re gonna lose control over the capitalist sector or not but so far it’s subordinate to the state. In capitalist economies the state (and democracy} tend to be subordinate to capital.
This is one of those troubles with the whole “communist” and “capitalist” things. None of them are actually truly what they say they are.
China and USSR started competing hard core on the global scale in the capitalism games, and lets be honest, look at China now and it’s fully on the capitalism train while still calling communist.
But that isn’t to say the US is any better on the capitalism wagon. The US is quite happy to drop capitalism if a company desires it. This is where we get our "too big to fail"s or companies that are given “loans” during the pandemic that they never have to pay back.
It’s almost like the terms are a joke by the upper echelon to fuck with the rest of us.
Perhaps ideological purism was never a good idea?
…Like history suggests?
Hence my radical preference: “a la carte” economic systems. Shameless capitalism, frothing communism, anarchism, authoritarian technocracy, even theocratic systems, they all excel in certain sectors and not others. Sometimes, in nutty combinations.
So why idealize one?
A “mix” has been reality for a long time, anyway, but I think that should be embraced more explicitly. Get systems where they’re good instead of shoehorning them where they’re horrific.
I figure that mixing is a good idea, and that was the basis of the “Universal Living” economic system that I have been writing up over the years. Universal Basic Income and socialism is great for establishing a foundation that people can rely upon, but it sucks at offering things that make people unique. Capitalism is terrific at making people into unique individuals, but is horrific at ensuring their basic wellbeing.
As such, socialism should be used to ensure everyone has decent necessities and stability, while money should solely be used for luxury things. Everyone gets a house, but you use money for a bigger house. A basic car is free, but a bigger gas guzzler has to be bought. If the basic car is damaged, just trade it in to the government and get a fresh one - the government keeps the old universal car, either repairing it back into service or scrapping it. Healthcare for most things are free, but cosmetic beautification like butt lifts, cost money. Ozempic is free, because less obesity is good across the board. And so on.
IMO, free basic goods and services would also help regulate the pricing of capitalist luxury, because they are competing against free. That makes it harder to rip off society. Also, if everyone has what they need, they aren’t blackmailed into working for bad corporations or breaking themselves to survive. Work, is just to earn money for cool things in life, but isn’t strictly required. People work by choice.
This translates into people pursuing aspects of life that best suit them - be it a specific career, helping their family, participating in the community, or creating arts. This is more optimal than the forced work of capitalism.
Maoist but in name only, as the hardcore Maoists in Mainland China and elsewhere are balking at how the country has become, a hegemony set to replace another.
Well, “communist.”
Idk how people think China is communist when they have for-profit hospitals, that’s like one of the biggest no-nos in communism lol.
Even the public hospitals are incentivized towards profit optimizing through over-prescription of medication (or useless stuff like homeopathy) in my experience. But last time I went through Chinese healthcare was all the way back in 2017, so things may have improved now (but I doubt it.)