4 ms·

In the 80s and 90s, Japan was the vaguely menacing economic bogeyman but that seems to have been in stark contrast to all I read about how Japan had almost no g

In the 80s and 90s, Japan was the vaguely menacing economic bogeyman but that seems to have been in stark contrast to all I read about how Japan had almost no growth in GDP through those years due to inflation or something I have already forgotten. Which is why I don’t really look at what China or the US is doing as being surprising. China has been the bad guy since they were admitted to the WTO, if I had to put a date on it. I mean, the Vietnam War didn’t help much either, but that war was China’s Vietnam war also. But economically, China is still treated differently than any other country. Actions against China like tariffs seem like a massive hedge against inflation, but I don’t know if it will put meaningful pressure on their economy or ours, but we get the government we deserve. I’m not sure if they have a saying like that in China, but it would be interesting if they did. I think federalism in the US allows a kind of “freedom gradient” where the patchwork of overlapping legalities allows for uneven enforcement and a distribution of norms of business and in behavior. These gaps allow for growth and innovation but can lead to voter approved market failures in one jurisdiction that might as well be a world away from those who work in the state capitols or in D.C. I don’t know why socialism, Marxism, or whatever is blamed for dictators doing bad things for good/bad/no reason. I don’t blame democracy for the bad policies of its adherents either. Any system of government can produce bad results.

lukan 1y ago
"I don’t know why socialism, Marxism, or whatever is blamed for dictators doing bad things for good/bad/no reason. " Maybe because the base of the theory comes with violence included? The need to take something of other people away(means of production) and maintain that order against expected resistance of the current owners? It is really not surprising to me, that all experiments ended with totalitarism, because how else to do it like this? (I am pretty sure there was some exchange between Marx and Engels I read, that already discussed the need to have camps where all the capitalists would have to be imprissoned) Also there is the concept of global domination. As far as I understood it - Marxism needs to rule globally to really work. No other model allowed. But in reality there are indefinite more possibilities between socialism and capitalism. But then again, I did not read much Marx. What I read confirmed what the (stalinists influenced) socialist priests told me before. And they definitely had the world revolution concept ingrained. But I also met and debated with lots of other alternative folks and the totalitarian concept seems universal with marxists. Anarchistic socialism is a bit of a different story, but in my eyes the same principle, just more local.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I don’t see the violence inherent to the system, at least not any more violence than is in any system in which the state has a monopoly on violence and has the power of eminent domain. If everyone in China could vote, and they voted along party lines as they do now, the system would be democratic in nature, and yet, nothing would change immediately as far as the US-China relation because the issue is multidimensional. Compromise between nations is a kind of diplomatic solution that is not available to individuals with respect to their government. It would be great for many people if China were democratic. Would it be better for all? Would it be better for the US? I’m not sure, but probably. But that’s not a mandate to subvert sovereignty, it’s a matter of trade offs. No one cares if Vietnam is socialist now, and they barely care that Cuba is. These things matter geopolitically, but they don’t matter to the average person.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "but they don’t matter to the average person." Yeah, but the average person apparently rather wants to live in a democracy than in a pseudodemocratic socialist state. I was too young to remember much of day to day life - but I do remember vividly the joy of the people after socialism was over.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      That's great. I'm happy for you, really. I want that experience for everyone, but you still have to go to work tomorrow. That's the sense in which I mean it doesn't matter. The certainty of labor under a system of control operated for profit is another sort of pseudo-democratic state we find ourselves in, and I hope I'm not too old to see the day that the last person works the last shift of wage labor, as that will be another sort of cause for celebration.
      - lukan 1y ago
        "I hope I'm not too old to see the day that the last person works the last shift of wage labor, as that will be another sort of cause for celebration." Oh, I agree to that, that is why I would not like to repeat the misstakes of the past on the pursuit to get there. So in the now I prefer to have the freedom to really choose my jobs or also choose to go away or choose to freelance. All not really possible before.

lukan 1y ago

"I don’t know why socialism, Marxism, or whatever is blamed for dictators doing bad things for good/bad/no reason. " Maybe because the base of the theory comes with violence included? The need to take something of other people away(means of production) and maintain that order against expected resistance of the current owners? It is really not surprising to me, that all experiments ended with totalitarism, because how else to do it like this? (I am pretty sure there was some exchange between Marx and Engels I read, that already discussed the need to have camps where all the capitalists would have to be imprissoned) Also there is the concept of global domination. As far as I understood it - Marxism needs to rule globally to really work. No other model allowed. But in reality there are indefinite more possibilities between socialism and capitalism. But then again, I did not read much Marx. What I read confirmed what the (stalinists influenced) socialist priests told me before. And they definitely had the world revolution concept ingrained. But I also met and debated with lots of other alternative folks and the totalitarian concept seems universal with marxists. Anarchistic socialism is a bit of a different story, but in my eyes the same principle, just more local.

aspenmayer 1y ago
I don’t see the violence inherent to the system, at least not any more violence than is in any system in which the state has a monopoly on violence and has the power of eminent domain. If everyone in China could vote, and they voted along party lines as they do now, the system would be democratic in nature, and yet, nothing would change immediately as far as the US-China relation because the issue is multidimensional. Compromise between nations is a kind of diplomatic solution that is not available to individuals with respect to their government. It would be great for many people if China were democratic. Would it be better for all? Would it be better for the US? I’m not sure, but probably. But that’s not a mandate to subvert sovereignty, it’s a matter of trade offs. No one cares if Vietnam is socialist now, and they barely care that Cuba is. These things matter geopolitically, but they don’t matter to the average person.
- lukan 1y ago
  "but they don’t matter to the average person." Yeah, but the average person apparently rather wants to live in a democracy than in a pseudodemocratic socialist state. I was too young to remember much of day to day life - but I do remember vividly the joy of the people after socialism was over.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    That's great. I'm happy for you, really. I want that experience for everyone, but you still have to go to work tomorrow. That's the sense in which I mean it doesn't matter. The certainty of labor under a system of control operated for profit is another sort of pseudo-democratic state we find ourselves in, and I hope I'm not too old to see the day that the last person works the last shift of wage labor, as that will be another sort of cause for celebration.
    - lukan 1y ago
      "I hope I'm not too old to see the day that the last person works the last shift of wage labor, as that will be another sort of cause for celebration." Oh, I agree to that, that is why I would not like to repeat the misstakes of the past on the pursuit to get there. So in the now I prefer to have the freedom to really choose my jobs or also choose to go away or choose to freelance. All not really possible before.