The brainwashing bit was a “if you want to learn more,” not critical to my point.

I think when you focus too much on ideology, you are missing the core reasons why humans behave the way they do, chiefly material conditions. Human actions are more based on their surroundings than any innate human “greed,” same with ideology. I think, ultimately, you are taking too much of an “ideas-focused” view of human history, which Materialists would reject. I suggest you read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The Mode of Production is dominant over ideological concerns. Ideology may reinforce the Mode of Production, but ideas are formed through experiencing the real world, not random phantasms beamed to your head.

In Western democracies “freedom of the press” is intended to be a counterbalance against this type of tyranny of the government.

No offense, but this is wrong. The intention is to give wealthy Capitalists dictatorial control over media, and it is working as intended. The justification for the working class is to “protect against government tyranny,” but the government in Capitalism is also subservient to Capitalists. They aren’t opposed, the system is working as intended.

While Communist democracies may have recognized the susceptibility of the “free press” to being bought up by capitalists and turned into a propaganda arm, and so has put limitations on it, it’s also removed the check against tyranny of the government. I’m not sure what its replaced it with?

Socialist systems are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones. The “free press” in Capitalism is Capitalist press, bought by Capitalists. State press in Capitalism is still Capitalist press, as the State is bought by Capitalists. There are no checks. Press in Socialist countries may have controls, but this also protects against rampant misinformation, such as the “Lab Leak” nonsense or COVID denialism.

As far as “voting out corruption,” easier to do in Socialism than Capitalism, where corruption is the rule. Socialist countries must keep the mandate of the people, or else face unrest and instabilitt, the government has to do its best to uphold that.

Is this just inevitable then? That seems like it’s the trajectory of capitalism anyway.

Not quite. Nuclear war, Capitalism winning war, climate change, and more could stop it. Even then, it must still be overthrown, is isn’t a won game. Trajectory is on our side, but we cannot be complacent.

so, all a Socialist country would have to do is hold on long enough for late stage capitalism to come to roost. Then they’re outproducing the capitalists, and if the capitalists decide to wage a war its too late. They don’t have the production.

See China’s strategy, and why it has focused on developing the Global South, as a means to both gain customers and ween itself off of needing US investment. They learned from what led to the collapse of the USSR. The US offshored its production, relying on Imperialism, and now this is weakening as more countries pivot away from it.

The US is burning all its bridges, tarrifing itself for no explainable reason, and making enemies out of allies while China, they are leading the green revolution and are capable of acknowledging climate change.

Spot-on. The US is flailing to save itself from the trap it willingly walked into.

China is investing in the correct places for the future. I don’t even know if the US could win a war against them today, let alone tomorrow.

Probably not today, unless it went nuclear. Then everyone would lose. China’s long-term plan is because of its Socialist system.

Also are there any people who’ve addressed the unique need for nuclear dearmament in these late term stages? That seems to be a complicated problem.

Impossible without demolishing Imperialism, as the primary contradiction in the world today, and possibly impossible until the erasure of borders into one global system, IMO.

I think a big point to keep in mind is that both Capitalist and Socialist countries propagandize, but Capitalist countries tend to have much lower support rates despite having a more sophisticated propaganda apparatus. “Brainwashing” doesn’t exist, people’s opinions most closely coincide with what they believe genuinely benefits them. For more on that concept, Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”

I also don’t know what you mean by “truth going against Socialist values.” Dogmatism isn’t a Socialist value, if something Socialists believe goes against truth, then the Socialist value is to correct course. This is baked-into Marxism from the outset, it’s Marx’s entire modus operandi via Dialectical Materialism.

As for the fact that Communism must be global, no worries! I much prefer to discuss Marxist theory and practice anyways. For starters, you’re absolutely on the right track, remaining Capitalist countries would see lowering rates of profit over time as they monopolize their own resources, and then would seek the resources and potential customers of other countries. The system has this baked-in, leading to war.

There’s also the notion of class. A classless society, truly, requires everyone in a system to have equal ownership over all. Either there is no interaction with the Capitalist bloc whatsoever, in which case war will happen, or there is some degree of trade, in which case the production of commodities for trade will persist and thus classes will continue. It would still be Socialist, but not fully classless, and thus contradictions would persist and it would be the job of the proletariat to resolve them until the commodity form can be abolished altogether.

“Trade” still exists in Communism, kind of, just not the kind of commodity exchange likely to happen with Capitalist bloc countries. See what the PRC looks like as an example, in order to participate in the world economy, it has to engage in its own degree of private ownership and commodity production. It’s still Socialist, but certainly isn’t the future state of Communism.

Fair, I’ll tone it down a bit. I get frustrated when disagreements are painted as toxic manipulation on my part, as it avoids engaging with the points at hand and paints me as a deliberately malicious person. Since you made it clear that that isn’t your intent, I’ll move on from that point.

I fully understand what you’re trying to say about “authoritarianism.” My point is that the idea of “excess control” is a matter of perspective. If, as we showed in China, the speech of businesses is heavily curtailed, then this is an act of authority. It is, however, a fully justified use of authority in my opinion, as a member of the working class, but someone like Elon Musk would not be a fan and would consider it authoritarian. Trying to treat the existence of excess as an objective measure that can be applied from all perspectives equally isn’t really connected to reality, the concepts of a metaphysical “good” and “evil” like in DnD don’t actually exist. What exists are systems and people, and the Chinese system has very high approval rates.

I think we are past the point of useful conversation on bias, and we aren’t really going to see eye to eye. It’s impossible to be unbiased, so when a source with an opposing bias admits positives, I tend to place more weight there than a positive vias espousing positives.

Mussolini was handed power because the ruling class needed to protect itself, same with the Nazis in Germany. When the system decays and is under strain, it can either offer concessions like in the US under FDR, or it has to exert brutal violence to do so. Often, both are applied. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, specifically the first chapter, as its about fascism.

As for class, the way to getting rid of it is via comprehensively resolving the contradictions in society in favor of the working class, until there is a fully publicly owned and planned global economy run democratically to fulfill the needs of all, without commodity production. Class should be abolished, but we can’t abolish it at the stroke of a pen, it’s a historical action, not a legalistic one. If you want to learn more about Communist theory, I can make some recommendations. Of course, those unable to work or have hampered abilities should be taken care of with unique protections.

Considering international systems are currently dominated by the US Empire, any agreement, no matter how good it sounds, is going to be passed for the benefit of maintainin that Empire. Considering the people of China love their system despite feeling it has a lot of work to be done, and the people of the US hate its own system, there is a clear difference in effectiveness.

As for Joe Biden’s deliberate misquoting of Xi Jinping, you need to realize what Xi actually said. It’s no surprise that a genocidal Imperialist like Joe Biden would lie, but to take his lie at face value, rather than Xi’s own words on the subject and the people of China who view their system as democratic at higher rates than US citizens, is silly.

Xi was criticizing the Western, liberal conception of democracy, not democracy in general. Biden took that critique of western “democracy” and left it as a critique of democracy itself, despite Xi routinely expressing motive to improve democracy. Read the speech Democracy is not an Ornament by Xi Jinping to see what he means. He is specifically advocating for the Chinese democratic model, which has much higher rates of civilian satisfaction than Western models.

It’s entirely the case that the purpose and real function of Chinese laws on publication are to control private businesses and celebrities, public figures, etc. Individuals critical of the CPC exist and post and comment, but those that are backed by private corporations attempting to swap the system to Capitalist are shut down.

Western governments are demonized by Chinese media, but you are not a consumer of Chinese News, nor is the average person outside of China. My point is specifically about Western portrayal of the countries that limit Western plundering.

I am not “gaslighting” you about “authoritarianism.” The fact that “authoritarianism” is such a common talking point abused by western media against geopolitical adversaries is common even among liberals like Noam Chomsky.

The factual information is often not correct as well. Often times numbers and figures are heavily distorted, relying on anonymity of sources to cover for them. This is also well-documented.

Further, I am not “gaslighting” you about Western states not being limited, either. You are moving the goalpost. All states have limitations, things the state can’t do, in the US, China, etc. However, the US state in particular has unlimited support for Capitalists. What it doesn’t need to do, it frames as a “limitation,” but will quickly go against those if needed by Capital.

As for class dynamics, no. The “how” of authority is fundamentally determined by the class in control and the conditions the system finds itself in. Fascism is Capitalism in decay, not a unique economic system. The Working Class should be in power becayse they are the majority of people, and the ones creating value, not because they are intrinsically kinder.

As for something China has done wrong, I’m not a fan of maintaining trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Maintaining a pro-Palestinian stance without supporting Palestinian liberation materially is soft.

As for the 2.8 number, it isn’t a percentage, but an average on responses 1-4, 4 being highly satisfied, 3 being moderately satisfied, 2 being moderately not satisfied, and 1 being not at all satisfied. The number of really not liking the Township is 2.3%, the number of overall not satisfied is 26%, the number moderately satisfied is 57%, and the number of really satisfied is 11%. These numbers appear to be growing, alongside continuous improvements in living conditions over time. This is for the weakest level of government, the higher you go the more satisfied with overall governance, as the CPC is highly competent and development has been rapid, but uneven, in the rural areas still lagging behind. Trends are shifting because in the last decade, there has been focus on the rural areas, which is why the number of satisfied at the Township level is dramatically increasing.

China does allow neutral parties to conduct polls, they even allowed the hostile party to conduct the polls. This is silly.

Western polling is notoriously slanted against its geopolitical adversaries. If I gave you an internal Chinese poll showing the same or better results, you’d be crying foul for it being biased.

Those are all basic laws that apply to businesses, not random citizens. A Socialist State controlling the media influence of private individuals is straight from Karl Marx. Even the specific law on individuals overwhelmingly applies to public figures and celebrities, not random citizens.

I never said China is “perfect.” I said it is demonized as “authoritarian” by Western Media because the owners in Western Media can’t do as they please in Chinese markets. I’m not “gaslighting” you by disagreeing with your conclusions.

Secondly, Western States aren’t limited. They are extremely strong, the US has hundreds of millitary bases all over the world (China has less than 10 foreign millitary bases). The Bill of Rights and Constitution also don’t serve the people. What they do serve is providing freedom for Capital owners to plunder and profit as they please, and the State is under their control.

My point is that “authoritarianism” is a meaningless buzzword. All states exert authority, what matters most is which clads is in control and thus exerting its authority. In the West, that is the capitalist class, in China, it’s the working class. Both are “authoritarian,” in that sense, as all states are, but are fundamentally different in character, backed by why China has such high approval rates and the US has such low approval rates.

As for that one particular CNN article, I question it highly. Either the quality or quantity of the event is highly distorted, or important facts are obscured. This is the standard play, CNN is a propaganda outlet and the US has approved 1.6 billion dollars exclusively for anti-PRC propaganda.

You can absolutely organize, but not in a manner that goes against the public good. Private interests use such mechanisms to oppose the system that is overwhelmingly popular. The CPC frequently supports worker strikes and protests against corrupt businesses.

Further, you again pretend “very satisfied” is the same as overall approval. You’re lying. The actual approval rate at the Township level is 70.2%, which you either think is “abysmally low,” or are intentionally trying to twist very satisfied into satisfied in general, which is coincidentally a propaganda tactic used by Western Media, focusing on one aspect and omitting the more important data. Here’s the actual table:

Yes, a study by a theoretical “neutral” party would be most accurate. It’s likely the approval rate is actually higher than the hostile poll shows. By showing that even someone hostile must admit the high approval rates, other, less hostile polls showing the same or better figures are vindicated.

The reason I include it as a source is because it’s conducted by a group hostile to the CPC and interested in undermining it. The opinions of those gathering the data are already hostile to the system, yet the data absolutely points in favor of popular support. Further, the 11.3% for “very satisfied” doesn’t translate to all satisfied, only those very satisfied. The PRC is a rapidly improving country.

China does have freedom of speech. They exert more control over what corporations and billionaires can say, but they are more or less similar in speech levels to other countries. Again, the reason China is labeled “authoritarian” by the Western Media is because their corporate owners cannot do as they please. They want to foster hostility towards China among the public by exclusively showing a one-sided point of view that aligns perfectly with the views of their owners.

In conclusion, my source says exactly what I said it does. It’s reliable in that we can trust the positives admitted from someone overall hostile.

Getting an eReader helped significantly with reading, but I still lose steam every now and again…

I think you’re confusing decentralized communes with Marxist Communism, a fully publicly owned and planned global economy run democratically (oversimplified, of course). Communes can only work at small scale, perhaps with some level of federation, but the Communism Marxists aspire for is an extremely global and industrialized mode of production. Further, “dictators using it as a front” are relatively small in number, such as Pol Pot.

Yep, seems over time stances do change.

…no? Pretty spot-on.

You’re not making a joke, though, you’re just antagonizing for no benefit.

But you don’t identify the dominant mode of production. You see an overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned economy, and call it “capitalism.” There is no transition from Capitalism to Communism for you, it remains Capitalism until every last drop of former society is eradicated. I’m going to recommend What is Socialism? one more time, as it directly addresses your line of thought.

The PRC is quite obviously the easiest example, but I’d say every existing Socialist system has achieved remarkable success in the face of horrible opposition.

I dont oppose colonialism.

What an amazing self-tell.

What do you think the transition from Socialism to Communism looks like? Especially when Communism must be global.

We’ve spoken on this before, ultimately you still cling to the “One Drop Rule” as a consequence of undercooked study of Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

Edit: to respond to your edit, non-ML-derived Marxists are a minority among Marxists globally. Trotskyists are a largely western phenomenon, as are Left-comms, so it’s unsurprising that there would only be 1 or 2 non-ML Marxists. Further, ML is overwhelmingly the most common umbrella of Marxists these days because it has seen real success, and theory and practice have proven it. There are sub-tendencies, but the umbrella of ML is so well-established because it’s correct, if we are to be Marxists.

What I am arguing is the Marxist POV, which is certified through historical trends. Even before land had been monopolized, the bourgeoisie quickly became dominant financially. You’re confusing the class character of workers and owners as individual judgements and not as a subsection of society with definite relations, a worker can have some savings and an owner can do some labor, but that’s not the point of class analysis. If you aren’t going to actually engage with the Marxist critique, why are you acting as though you know what the Marxist critique is? It’s condescending.

Same with the wild assumptions of workers being capable of saving at the same rate as Capitalists, and the idea that Capitalists turn profits from their own labor, and not through paying workers less than the value they create. You haven’t once engaged with that fundamental critique from the Socialist camp, that Capitalists must pay workers less than the Value they create in order to turn a profit. They can’t be similar jobs, because they have entirely different social relations.

The next part, where you repeat the idea that there can be such thing as “a mix of Socialism and Capitalism,” fundamentally avoids the arguments at hand. Socialism and Capitalism are terms for the entire system, by analyzing which aspect of society is primary, public or private ownership. Private ownership is not capitalism, and public ownership is not Socialism. Further, these safety nets came about because of strong revolutionary pressure, not democratic institutions. These Safety Nets are whithering in Scandinavia, and Scandinavia still funds them with the spoils of Imperialism.

As for workers and surplus value, even at the market rate, they are paid less than the value they create. That’s where profit comes from. Labor power’s value is normalized around the cost of living and reproduction, not the value created nor the productivity of labor. That is why wealth is widening. Market salary is less than the value created by labor.

As for the US vs China, no, not even close. Further, the US is the world’s largest Empire, the vast majority of its spoils come from plunder. China’s do not.

As for Central Planning, this is an extremely poor argument against it. Such an argument ignores that we have irrefutable evidence of Central Planning being far more effective than Private Ownership in many conditions, and argues against a strawman, not actual central planning. The Road to Serfdom came out in 1944, and has been thoroughly disproven in reality through the existence of Socialist economies outperforming Capitalist ones.

The truth is, in developed Capitalist nations, the economy is already planned, just through private institutions. State planning is extremely effective, and allows surpassing the limitations enforced by the profit motive. Hayek’s assertion is one of nihilism, asserting that we can’t develop further economic knowledge, but works by Paul Cockshott and the existence of well-developed economic planning disproved Hayek long ago. Central planning is about broad tendencies as well as reviewing signals from consumption to re-allocate resources, it isn’t about predicting absolutely every single thing. Such is the Strawman.

Not sure about what your China point is.

Your last round of questions is answered by studying Socialist countries. It would be one thing if none existed, but many do, and your concerns don’t pan out in reality.

I was harsh this comment, admittedly so, but because you have displayed a frustrating insistence on arguing against strawmen and asserting your views as though you have a thorough understanding of mine, when your critiques have long been outdated and based upon strawmen. I recommend reading up on Zhenli’s posts, as they are quite simplified and thorough. In particular:

1. The Comedy of Mises, about central planning critiques

2. Bad Philosophy: Responding to a Free Market Fundamentalist

3. Addressing Common Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value, addresses surplus value and rents

4. Free Market Absolutism

5. Prices in a Planned Economy addresses central planning, and how it works

6. How to Calculate Value

7. Falling Rate of Profit, why Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and monopolization a necessity

8. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism

9. Why Public Property?

10. Fiat Money: Global Theft.

These should all help you develop an understanding of what the Marxist position is, so you don’t need to argue against strawmen.

Thanks for the response. I want to point a few things out:

I want to add that if rent didn’t exist (economic rent, Ricardian rent, monopoly rents, political rents etc.), then capitalism would not lead to inequality.

This is an impossibility. Capital owners and workers will always be unequal, if there were no measurable benefit for being an owner, then everyone would be a worker. Profit comes from the surplus value created by workers, so the workers are getting their value siphoned through employment.

I would argue that the rents have increased from 70s to now in the US and many other western countries, but they also decreased from 30s to 50s and remained low for two more decades - and this change happened not through a revolution or seizing all companies. It happened democratically through the creation of a welfare state, through seizing some natural monopolies, unions, insurances, worker’s rights, and through public investment in innovation. These reforms show that systems can curb rentier dynamics without dismantling markets entirely.

These happened for 2 major reasons. The first, is that the Soviet Union presented an alternative to Capitalism, and Capital was scared of worker revolution. The second, is that these are always temporary measures, as you noted, these waned over time. They were not granted democratically, but as a consequence of labor organization, these band-aids happened to prevent the system from collapsing under its own contradictions, that were particularly dire after World War I and II.

Looks like China’s share of wealth accruing to the top 10% has gone from around 42% in 1990s to around 68% in 2024 https://wid.world/country/china/.

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf It’s true that China’s wealth inequality in their post-Mao era is higher, but with it has come the largest poverty eradication in history.

Ultimately, I don’t think any system should be purely one or the other. Central planning has deep flaws, and so do unregulated markets. If we can maintain a democratic structure with a well-informed public, then we have a real chance to strike the right balance: limiting rents, promoting equity, and preserving freedom.

I don’t really know what you mean, here. What “deep flaws” does Central Planning have? Why is Socialism not democratic enough in your eyes? Any system that leaves Capitalists in control of the State will always fail to deliver on what you say you want.

Good to see! Dialectical Materialism is critical for understanding Marxism.

As for Palestine, the alternatives to being pro-Palestinian are believing the Palestinians started it and thus deserve it, or that the Zionists started it, but also condemning Hamas for fighting back. Neither of those are correct, of course.

As far as justifying violence against “enemies,” I think Dialectical Materialism will help. One can label the Working Class in the Global North as largely bribed and thus anti-revolutionary, and yet never jump to genocidal conclusions. The point is that the system is the target, analysis of different positions classes hold is to understand why they act in the way they do generally, and how best to overcome it. There is no Materialist reason to slaughter civilians, really.