I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.
At first, I thought that philosophy was different in the West, too… )))
Comrade, just for you, I asked Google—in English.
Do these explanations satisfy you?
Or do you think that “Empiricism focuses on gathering evidence and facts through sensory experience and observation” could negatively affect my socialist convictions?
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day.
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China—that would represent the opinion of a genuine modern-day Russian communist.
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me otherwise, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China. That would represent the opinion of a genuine, modern-day Russian communist.
His username is Dessalines.
Comrade, I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion about China right now; my American comrades and I spent weeks arguing about this very subject over on Reddit.
We debated everything—what their typical workday looks like, the fact that they sleep on the job, and how much a street sweeper in Shanghai actually earns.
What you’re telling me is merely the window dressing. It’s just the official data.
And mind you, it wasn’t Russians who failed to pay the Chinese workers; it was a Chinese company that withheld wages from its own employees. The workers actually appealed directly to Putin, asking him to help them extract the money from the “socialist” owner of the enterprise—who had fled back to China and left his workers completely stranded.
Do you know exactly how many hours a day Chinese workers actually put in over there? I know for a fact! And that alone is enough for me to grasp the true nature of what’s happening in China; as for what gets written in the official reports—well, that’s nothing more than graffiti on a wall in a Brooklyn ghetto!
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism
No, I am not advocating for a utopia; I am asserting that the kind of socialism that existed in the USSR is simply impossible to build anywhere today!
This is not a utopia—it is bitter regret and frustration! How I hate that bastard, branded on the forehead with the mark of the devil.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union?
Better yet, please tell me, Comrade: what is the difference between a worker in Shanghai and a worker in Moscow right now?
I’ll tell you upfront: a street cleaner in Moscow earns more. Furthermore, a street cleaner in Moscow receives free housing—modest, perhaps, but housing nonetheless.
Regarding empiricism, I already explained that I interpreted your comment identifying yourself as an empiricist to be a declaration against dialectical materialism, and towards metaphysical materialism. After you explainend that you did not mean that, I better understood you. Again, Lenin wrote the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism against vulgar empiricism, but empiricism itself as a method of observation combined with dialectical materialism is not a bad thing. That’s why I chalk it up to language difference.
As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours. This is unacceptable for a socialist to use as ammo against a socialist state, and is plainly disappointing to see. I have hope in Russian communists to eventually bring a return of socialism to Eastern Europe, but seeing this kind of behavior is disappointing, and I’m glad it isn’t an official party statement.
As for the USSR, I was not calling it Utopian. I was specifically calling you a Utopian for your focus on “model-building.” The USSR was no utopia, it was a real socialist state, just like China is today. What I was calling Utopian was your definition of socialism as “whatever the Soviets did,” ie by measuring how socialist a country is by how closely it follows the Soviet example. The Soviet system was the socialist system suited to Eastern Europe in the conditions of the 20th century, it is not a permanent model to be emulated and perpetuated but was a living and evolving system.
When I speak of Utopianism, I mean the type of socialist such as Robert Owen and Saint Simon, the pre-Marxist socialists Engels countered in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that’s not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication.
As for the difference between Chinese and Russian workers, Chinese workers control the state and thus direct the social surplus of society towards pro-social ends. The commanding heights of industry are publicly owned in China. Again, China is closer to a more complex and developed NEP than the modern Russian economy. Socialism is not simply “having social programs,” otherwise the Nordics would be socialist. Instead, the class character of the state and the principal aspect of the economy are critical.
Regarding empiricism, I already explained that I interpreted your comment identifying yourself as an empiricist to be a declaration against dialectical materialism, and towards metaphysical materialism. After you explainend that you did not mean that, I better understood you. Again, Lenin wrote the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism against vulgar empiricism, but empiricism itself as a method of observation combined with dialectical materialism is not a bad thing. That’s why I chalk it up to language difference.
I had to delve deeper into the subject to understand where our disagreements lay.
I found the reason:
Empiricism is a classical doctrine that considers** sensory experience** to be the primary source of all knowledge. Empiriocriticism is its narrow, modernized version (the second positivism of the turn of the 20th century), which attempted to “purify” experience of concepts like matter and objective reality, reducing it to a pure complex of subjective sensations.
I was talking about the classical, fundamental school of philosophy, not its narrow, modernized part.
And I maintain that I am an empiricist not just for the sake of it, but because it is my credo, my insight.
I may doubt or disagree with some of it, but the basics are quite satisfactory to me.
And I’m not talking about socialism or Lenin now—this process is happening in parallel.
Vladimir Lenin viewed experience through the prism of Marxist epistemology. He defined experience as** sensory perceptions**, historical memory, and social practice, which serve as the primary criterion for the truth of any knowledge.
“As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right. I’m talking about workers and peasants and their rights.
No, that’s not the only reason.
I wouldn’t continue this conversation, Comrade.
I know how sensitive this is for Western socialists, and I don’t want to spoil their mood, because I have nothing against them.
The fact is that opinion in the West and opinion among communists in Russia differ sharply on this issue.
“I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that’s not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication.”
In short, you keep telling me that building socialism like the USSR in today’s reality is utopian.
I respond that I yearn for a lost paradise, because such a thing will never exist again.
Comrade, aren’t these the same thing?
I understand perfectly well that you can’t build something like that in China now.
I understand that you’re telling me that conditions are different in China; just wait a bit, everything will happen naturally, as Marx intended, but it will be a different path, unlike the USSR’s. We just need to wait about 50 years.
Did I understand you correctly this time?
direct the social surplus of society towards pro-social ends.
In the USSR, this was called Zakroma Rodiny (Motherland’s Granary), a very familiar terminology.
Is the Pension Fund an insignificant goal?
Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go?
To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation.
Comrade, I also read the newspaper “Pravda” as a child, and everything seemed so good and smooth there, but in reality, things don’t always work out that way.
What can I say about this: I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village and interviewed local residents, visiting their homes. What can I say: as far as everyday life goes, Russian peasants live a little better, except that Chinese peasants have too many electronics, while Russian city dwellers probably don’t have that much in their homes. ))) Everything seems fine there—they live and work. The blogger also interviewed an elderly woman (about 70 years old). She also had no complaints, except that they only paid pensions to those who worked for a state enterprise or to those who had earned their stripes before the Party. The blogger asked what they should do then? She replied: if they have relatives, they help; if not, they have to work themselves.
I see the decree was passed in 2014… it hasn’t been fully implemented yet. It’s been taking a while.
Are you telling me there wasn’t a real Chinese peasant woman there?
If you think I’m feeding you speculation right now, then we should probably stop talking.
You, a woman, don’t receive a pension; in her village, no one receives a pension except for government employees.
"In China, citizens who have not made regular pension contributions for the required period (at least 15 years) do not receive a state old-age pension.
These categories include:
Rural residents without insurance: Elderly people in villages who do not participate in the basic pension insurance system for rural residents."
Is this a joke?
So, it turns out that peasants who lived their lives in poverty, who couldn’t afford insurance, are left without a pension in their old age. And they lived in poverty not because they are lazy, but because China has only recently emerged from poverty. These are people who were born under Mao.
I have nothing against the fact that development was difficult in China, just please don’t make fun of me.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That’s why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as “true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be “true.” I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem.
As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.
For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate.
China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” As far as “western Marxism” is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959)
Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968)
Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975)
From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988)
Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993)
Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003)
Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013)
Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
So what if they made a deal with the western devil?
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
The soviets did so too during the NEP
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy.
But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.
At first, I thought that philosophy was different in the West, too… )))
Comrade, just for you, I asked Google—in English.
Do these explanations satisfy you?
Or do you think that “Empiricism focuses on gathering evidence and facts through sensory experience and observation” could negatively affect my socialist convictions?
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China—that would represent the opinion of a genuine modern-day Russian communist.
There was a guy here who, in an attempt to convince me otherwise, showed me a YouTube video featuring a translation of a book by the Russian communist Platoshkin. Ask that guy what Platoshkin thinks about China. That would represent the opinion of a genuine, modern-day Russian communist.
His username is Dessalines.
Comrade, I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion about China right now; my American comrades and I spent weeks arguing about this very subject over on Reddit.
We debated everything—what their typical workday looks like, the fact that they sleep on the job, and how much a street sweeper in Shanghai actually earns.
What you’re telling me is merely the window dressing. It’s just the official data.
This, however, is the unofficial reality:
https://dvobozrenie.ru/news/protesty-v-komsomolske-na-amure/
And mind you, it wasn’t Russians who failed to pay the Chinese workers; it was a Chinese company that withheld wages from its own employees. The workers actually appealed directly to Putin, asking him to help them extract the money from the “socialist” owner of the enterprise—who had fled back to China and left his workers completely stranded.
Do you know exactly how many hours a day Chinese workers actually put in over there? I know for a fact! And that alone is enough for me to grasp the true nature of what’s happening in China; as for what gets written in the official reports—well, that’s nothing more than graffiti on a wall in a Brooklyn ghetto!
No, I am not advocating for a utopia; I am asserting that the kind of socialism that existed in the USSR is simply impossible to build anywhere today!
This is not a utopia—it is bitter regret and frustration! How I hate that bastard, branded on the forehead with the mark of the devil.
Better yet, please tell me, Comrade: what is the difference between a worker in Shanghai and a worker in Moscow right now?
I’ll tell you upfront: a street cleaner in Moscow earns more. Furthermore, a street cleaner in Moscow receives free housing—modest, perhaps, but housing nonetheless.
That is what I consider utopian—not the USSR!
Regarding empiricism, I already explained that I interpreted your comment identifying yourself as an empiricist to be a declaration against dialectical materialism, and towards metaphysical materialism. After you explainend that you did not mean that, I better understood you. Again, Lenin wrote the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism against vulgar empiricism, but empiricism itself as a method of observation combined with dialectical materialism is not a bad thing. That’s why I chalk it up to language difference.
As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours. This is unacceptable for a socialist to use as ammo against a socialist state, and is plainly disappointing to see. I have hope in Russian communists to eventually bring a return of socialism to Eastern Europe, but seeing this kind of behavior is disappointing, and I’m glad it isn’t an official party statement.
As for the USSR, I was not calling it Utopian. I was specifically calling you a Utopian for your focus on “model-building.” The USSR was no utopia, it was a real socialist state, just like China is today. What I was calling Utopian was your definition of socialism as “whatever the Soviets did,” ie by measuring how socialist a country is by how closely it follows the Soviet example. The Soviet system was the socialist system suited to Eastern Europe in the conditions of the 20th century, it is not a permanent model to be emulated and perpetuated but was a living and evolving system.
When I speak of Utopianism, I mean the type of socialist such as Robert Owen and Saint Simon, the pre-Marxist socialists Engels countered in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that’s not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication.
As for the difference between Chinese and Russian workers, Chinese workers control the state and thus direct the social surplus of society towards pro-social ends. The commanding heights of industry are publicly owned in China. Again, China is closer to a more complex and developed NEP than the modern Russian economy. Socialism is not simply “having social programs,” otherwise the Nordics would be socialist. Instead, the class character of the state and the principal aspect of the economy are critical.
I had to delve deeper into the subject to understand where our disagreements lay.
I found the reason:
Empiricism is a classical doctrine that considers** sensory experience** to be the primary source of all knowledge. Empiriocriticism is its narrow, modernized version (the second positivism of the turn of the 20th century), which attempted to “purify” experience of concepts like matter and objective reality, reducing it to a pure complex of subjective sensations.
I was talking about the classical, fundamental school of philosophy, not its narrow, modernized part.
And I maintain that I am an empiricist not just for the sake of it, but because it is my credo, my insight.
I may doubt or disagree with some of it, but the basics are quite satisfactory to me.
And I’m not talking about socialism or Lenin now—this process is happening in parallel.
Vladimir Lenin viewed experience through the prism of Marxist epistemology. He defined experience as** sensory perceptions**, historical memory, and social practice, which serve as the primary criterion for the truth of any knowledge.
“As for China, your only sources seem to be vibes and personal anecdote regarding working hours.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right. I’m talking about workers and peasants and their rights.
No, that’s not the only reason.
I wouldn’t continue this conversation, Comrade.
I know how sensitive this is for Western socialists, and I don’t want to spoil their mood, because I have nothing against them.
The fact is that opinion in the West and opinion among communists in Russia differ sharply on this issue.
“I truly believe you are getting mixed up and believing me to claim the USSR was Utopian, but that’s not at all my point. I believe we are purely looking at a language barrier causing miscommunication.”
In short, you keep telling me that building socialism like the USSR in today’s reality is utopian.
I respond that I yearn for a lost paradise, because such a thing will never exist again.
Comrade, aren’t these the same thing?
I understand perfectly well that you can’t build something like that in China now.
I understand that you’re telling me that conditions are different in China; just wait a bit, everything will happen naturally, as Marx intended, but it will be a different path, unlike the USSR’s. We just need to wait about 50 years.
Did I understand you correctly this time?
In the USSR, this was called Zakroma Rodiny (Motherland’s Granary), a very familiar terminology.
Is the Pension Fund an insignificant goal?
Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go?
They do.
To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation.
Comrade, I also read the newspaper “Pravda” as a child, and everything seemed so good and smooth there, but in reality, things don’t always work out that way.
What can I say about this: I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village and interviewed local residents, visiting their homes. What can I say: as far as everyday life goes, Russian peasants live a little better, except that Chinese peasants have too many electronics, while Russian city dwellers probably don’t have that much in their homes. ))) Everything seems fine there—they live and work. The blogger also interviewed an elderly woman (about 70 years old). She also had no complaints, except that they only paid pensions to those who worked for a state enterprise or to those who had earned their stripes before the Party. The blogger asked what they should do then? She replied: if they have relatives, they help; if not, they have to work themselves.
I see the decree was passed in 2014… it hasn’t been fully implemented yet. It’s been taking a while.
Comrade anecdotes are not worth much
Are you telling me there wasn’t a real Chinese peasant woman there?
If you think I’m feeding you speculation right now, then we should probably stop talking.
You, a woman, don’t receive a pension; in her village, no one receives a pension except for government employees.
"In China, citizens who have not made regular pension contributions for the required period (at least 15 years) do not receive a state old-age pension.
These categories include: Rural residents without insurance: Elderly people in villages who do not participate in the basic pension insurance system for rural residents."
Is this a joke?
So, it turns out that peasants who lived their lives in poverty, who couldn’t afford insurance, are left without a pension in their old age. And they lived in poverty not because they are lazy, but because China has only recently emerged from poverty. These are people who were born under Mao.
I have nothing against the fact that development was difficult in China, just please don’t make fun of me.
“Individuals who participate in the pension insurance for urban and rural residents, who have reached the age of 60 and have paid a cumulative contribution for 15 years, and have not received the basic pension protection treatment stipulated by the state, can receive the pension insurance benefits of urban and rural residents on a monthly basis.”
Everyone receives a minimum pension but you cannot take the basic pension on top of other pensions.
Comrade I wish I could say you appear intelligent and sincere but it would be a lie in both cases I am afraid to say.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That’s why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as “true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be “true.” I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem.
As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.
For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate.
China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” As far as “western Marxism” is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
It wasn’t me who named it, Lenin named it… ))))
Yes, you’re probably right.
Really, this is what I’m more getting at:
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959) Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968) Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975) From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988) Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993) Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003) Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013) Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy. But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
The team is small, 10 people…
I didn’t know this, I said the phrase on my own.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.