The TL:DR here is that Wolff believes the USSR, China and Western social democracies are all transitional economic systems that got stalled or blocked before achieving socialism. The Chinese/USSR model is government controlling private companies, Western capitalism is the reverse, but in both cases employees are at the bottom of the hierarchy, whether working for state-owned enterprises, supervised private companies, or in highly regulated/unionized industries. His conclusion is that the underlying reason all of these attempts at transition from capitalism to socialism have become blocked up is because the employee/employer relationship remains at the base of the economic system--attacking that dyad is the way forward.
More complex than that though, read the article!
Not bad, but it's weird to talk about "stalled socialist states" without mentioning capitalist interference.
It says cold wars essentially force socialist states to stall their transition from state capitalism. He just believes internal forces played a greater role I guess
Yeah, he definitely mentions capital's attacks on transitional economic systems as a problem, seems to be pretty hopeful about the ability of the Chinese model to weather capitalist crises, and makes a point of saying that a new cold war would be bad. His argument is that simply reducing the outside pressure on transitional systems is not enough by itself--you also need to start dismantling employee/employer relationships. Bit of an early Bolshevik argument--the idea that we should "skip steps" and start doing communism sooner.
That said, it seems to me like the best change one can make in ones own life is to fight the fight that we all understand - our worker/employer relationships. It's something so direct that anyone can understand it (even without scary "communism") and it cripples capitalism, even if just by a tiny bit. My union has put a ton of pressure on leadership as of late, even issues that don't immediately concern us, like board members divesting from fossil fuels etc.
Just thinking from the perspective of praxis in my own life at least, and the life of the average American worker.
I interpreted that by discussing the cold war, he is ignoring the direct interference in non-USSR socialist governments.
His conclusion is that the underlying reason all of these attempts at transition from capitalism to socialism have become blocked up is because the employee/employer relationship remains at the base of the economic system–attacking that dyad is the way forward.
Doesn't sound like a dictatorship of the proletariat to me
Tl;dr for anyone too lazy to read it - they tried to do socialism but never completed the transition out of state capitalism, so Big Daddy Wolff thinks the answer is the destruction of the employer/employee model that dominates all states of the last century (attemptedly socialist or not).
Why or how this would change anything is not explained.EDIT: Last sentence is ambiguous, see below.
Ok I think I wasn't clear, there is more context that is needed for that than I provided.
Wolff is a market socialist who famously advocates for "worker self-directed enterprises" as the path to socialism. So when he says "destroy the employer/employee model" he isn't really saying "dissolve the bourgeois mode of production and institute a planned economy" like most people take Marx to mean, Wolff is saying "the USSR failed because it didn't do co-operatives."
Decent analysis, but the conclusion that China has ‘stalled’ feels presumptuous. We can revisit that assertion once it overcomes the USA. If there’s one thing the CPC is great at, it’s reinventing itself
China is at a point where they are powerful enough not to be directly threatened by imperialism in any major way. They've been that way for a pretty long time already. I think it is naive to ignore the power China's bourgeoisie has and to pretend like the CPC is an entity detached from society.
Thank you! I have this argument so often with so many People. Bourgeois is bourgeois, doesn’t matter how “woke” Or afraid of punishment the Chinese ones are they aren’t going to hand over their power willingly.
China is at a point where they are powerful enough not to be directly threatened by imperialism in any major way
Have you missed the last four years?
The USA has been fomenting dissent in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. It’s waged war on the tech sector. It’s even gearing up for a full blockade.
Right, because a trade war between superpowers is the same as a real war.
Sanctions and fomenting nationalistic/religious unrest are the new tools of imperialism. Outright invasion doesn’t really work against nuclear powers. And there’s a decent chance we’ll get a proper war anyway.
Lmao I like how you just invalidate the second part of your comment with the first.
only they aren't going to do any of that because they aren't fucking psychopathic
Basically my stance. China getting better, but held back by being attacked by the US.
Sigh, it's you again! Hope you're doing well, learning a lot in your Calculus class or whatever. For those of you not interested in reading a text wall about how Wolff sheepdogs westerners (or, as the linked comment phrases it "the extra-stupid whites"), the TL;DR is:
No, there is not a good answer on Lemmy.
build-up for war
There is no build up for war. It won't happen. No one is even thinking about doing that. Superpowers have figured out direct war against each other isn't the best way to duke it out long ago.
So you understand there is no such thing as war preparation in this case. Because none of these are actions of war against China.
if you keep telling people they'll never get it, why should they bother reading a word you say?
but i doubt they will
please make up your mind and say yes or no. i feel like we have been so inundated with weasel words that they end up weaseling into our own language. i don't feel i can take a stand on something until i am able to make a definitive statement.
so why do you say things like, "I doubt they will" that seems like some sort of hint at an opinion of the future? can you make it clear?
the propaganda starts from childhood. how easily do you think a small child could see through something they have been told as long as they can remember?
lol, you edit often enough I can see it while I type.
America imprisons more people than any other country on the planet, but you would never know by letting mainstream american media shape your view.
actually most yanks do know this, the chuds just say it's because of all the black people, the libs say the same racist bullshit but quietly
My dude you can find plenty of sources calling China socialist with the purpose to discredit socialism. It's not a threatening idea whatsoever.
What you’ve got there isn’t propaganda for public consumption; it’s specific advice given to the ruling class on China’s model, and the risk it poses. They don’t need to ‘discredit socialism’ to that audience.
If you read the document, you’ll see what they’re terrified of is China existing and thriving as a role model to other nations and oppressed people.
I am baffled as to why you think posting some random pdf from someone is supposed to prove the western bourgeoisie feels threatened by China being considered socialist.
It’s testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, given earlier this year. Which you’d know if you read the first page.
Again, if you read it and put their conclusions in the context of the USA’s recent actions, you’d also know that the USA is taking their recommendations to heart.
It explicitly says in the piece that they view a successful China as a threat, because of its prioritisation of collective wellbeing over property rights.
Read all of it. The reason I posted it wasn’t because I wanted to give whatever half-baked take the neocons have about the Party’s motivation. Rather, it’s about what the neocons fear, and what they fear is China thriving in a multilateral world, and the China Model being looked on as a role model by oppressed nations.
Fine, call it the early stages of socialist construction, if that fits your definitional sensibilities better.
What we know is that it’s seen the most significant reduction in extreme poverty ever, massive construction of public infrastructure, huge rises in living conditions, overwhelming public support, and considerable assistance to the global south, with a capacity for directing resources according to use value, and the ability to reinvent itself when necessary. We also know that it’s considered substantially different by the governing structure of the capitalist world, and that they’re terrified of it.
Regardless of whether you think that cat is black or white, it’s sure catching a lot of rats.
Socialism isn’t utopian. It’s progressive.
The USA, as a capitalist powerhouse, was a progressive force in the world for a while. Now it’s pretty clearly a global reactionary force, in both action and intent.
Maybe at some point the CPC will become a reactionary force, but that day isn’t today.
Re surplus value being extracted: that’s in-line with what Marx proposes in Critique. Surplus can still be extracted for common endeavours. Now, there’s also considerable surplus going to private hands, and some of that even ends up in endeavours not conducive to the common good, but the lion’s share ends up under the purview of the Party, for developmental purposes.
