knfrmity @ knfrmity @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

10

Comments

691

Joined

3 yr. ago

I do have a grasp of what capitalist and socialist mean. I'm confused by your mixing and matching of terms. I'm consistently using Marxist definitions here.

France is a country with a capitalist mode of production.

China is socialist. China has home ownership for personal use, but no private land ownership and ever dwindling private ownership of the means of production. Homes for the purpose of living in, ie personal property, are not a means of production, and houses for rent for the purpose of enriching the owner at the expense of the tenant, ie private property, basically don't exist.

Markets have nothing to do with the distinction between capitalist and socialist modes of production, the ownership of the means of production and thus also the class in control of the state is the defining characteristic.

If you're interested in learning more about SWCC here are some resources.

Study guide: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/socialism-with-chinese-characteristics?rq=Socialism%20with%20Chinese%20characteristics

An older but still relevant essay on how China is not capitalist: https://chinareporting.blogspot.com/2009/11/class-nature-of-chinese-state-critique_26.html?m=1

No, China is socialist.

The USA or India are by economy and population respectively the largest capitalist nations.

What two superpowers?

I'll assume we're talking about the USA and China here.

It may sound reductive, but a peaceful coexistence between liberalism (aka capitalism / other ideologies where private property rights are enshrined) and communism (in this case used as a blanket term for ideologies which are against the concept of private ownership of the means of production) is not stable and will inevitably collapse.

All that needs to happen to avoid a war is for the US capitalist class to keep their grubby greedy hands to themselves. They can't do that though, for capital must grow. They must find more raw materials, more human labour, and more consumers to maintain their profits. They are incapable of cultivating good relations with anyone, let alone anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist entities, because every relationship they enter into is an economic one in which they want to be the exploiters, the winners, extracting obscene wealth from the losers.

The rest of the world is moving in a positive peaceful direction, but I'm concerned about what the capitalist empire will do as it becomes more and more desperate. It's already done some of the most horrific things in human history while in a position of unchallenged or nearly unchallenged hegemony. I can't imagine what it will try when it realizes it's about to lose everything.

If you're talking about the Century of Humiliation and specific events like the rape and massacre of Nanking and the occupation of Manchuria, absolutely.

Of course they were. Just off the top of my head I can name 1968, 1980, and 2000. That these were all years in which Republicans won the White House is a genuine coincidence though, election rigging and other actions of the capitalist class to control the state institutions are quite indifferent to political parties.

Which half depends on who is in the White House at the moment.

Assuming everything goes to plan with other announced semiconductor projects in the west, they're also going to have to compete against US, German, and Israeli chips.

A magazine by and for the capitalist class. Soldiers on the battlefield are but tools on a production line.

The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires, is pursuing a very instructive line in relation to the war.

V. I. Lenin

It's hard to annex a nuclear armed country that has a well trained military, especially one that knows what the capitalist empire is up to.

The Bretton Woods institutions were designed to assist the USA in its post-war project of global imperial hegemony. They were never meant to assist developing countries, quite the opposite, they were meant to assist the US and to a lesser extent western Europe to more efficiently extract resources and value from resource rich countries.

Maybe, I genuinely don't know.

I certainly hope so as well.

All that is true, it's just funny that the reality stands in stark contrast to European politicians (who must also know that) claiming that cheap Chinese EVs are going to outcompete European EVs in Europe.

The EU is already very angry, but I have yet to see a Chinese EV available for less than a European one, and Tesla is probably the cheapest. At this point the Chinese or other new Asian EV manufacturers are only selling their top of the line models in Europe if any at all.

They're not even that cheap. I am unfortunately in the market for a car and as much as I'd like one of these mythical cheap Chinese EVs, they don't exist in Europe.

The one-two punch of cutting ourselves off from cheap Russian fossil fuels and shutting down all nuclear generation in the same time period has made a huge difference, something like a 30% increase in just two years. It would have been closer to a 50% increase if a the renewable energy surcharge had not been phased out and if the federal government hadn't temporarily limited the end-user electric price.

I wonder how much this has to do with price. There's certainly a correlation to the increase in electricity prices over the last ten years.

They keep getting robbed by the IMF.

I'm sure the Deputy PM is trying her best to do that sort of thing.

IIRC the US has laws preventing procurement of medications overseas where prices could be lower due to whatever price control structures are in place.