Welcome!

[His Name Is John]

It seems to me, that new members rarely post a introduction thread anymore. As such I am making this thread as a way that new members can say hi, and get to know a couple of people on the forums.

So to all the new members:

First of all, hello!

Second, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?

[Haven]

Funnily enough, just over a week ago, I traveled to Guang'an - Deng Xiaoping's hometown. I used to outright despise him as a revisionist who destroyed the revolutionary spirit of China, and I never really understood why any Chinese person could possibly admire him except for wanting to run a business and grow wealthy at the expense of others.

Recently, though, after a bit of self-criticism, I see I'd been taking accounts of him, generally by individuals hostile to (or at least operating outside of the praxis of) socialism more or less at face value instead of reading the man's own words. So recently I've read a fair amount of works, and he seems to actually, for the most part be consistent with the main ideas of Maoism. For most of his life, he was in the same faction of the Party as Mao, and defended Mao against the ultra-leftist faction.

Deng's words may have been socialist, but his actions clearly steered China toward integration with the global capitalist economic system (and his successors have only moved further in that direction). Actions speak louder than words, and there is very little "socialism" remaining in post-Deng China. If there is anything "revolutionary" left in China, it's not from the party insiders or mainstream politicians, who seem to have become the establishment in every sense of the word.

And to be frank, even though I align myself mostly in Mao's field, I think as a human being, he made some mistakes. Some fairly big ones at that. Deng did too. As do all of us humans.

This, in my opinion, is a massive understatement: Mao orchestrated the slaughter of millions of his own citizens, and his failed agricultural policies led to the starvation of millions more. He seems to be the epitome of a failed despotic leader who essentially killed off a revolution.

But of course, different historical conditions require different actions on the part of states. Lenin himself advised that we ought to "use capitalism against itself". So while it certainly has its dangers, it isn't necessarily a betrayal of socialism to allow the opening of a market economy or foreign investment therein if ultimately the state still retains controlling interest. It's easier to serve the people's interests with a strong economy than one sanctioned into the abyss. Sad, but in a Post-Soviet world especially, probably necessary for the time being. Socialism is a goal.

I doubt Lenin would support the massive capitalist investments that today's China is making worldwide and within its own borders. It seems as though profit, not socialism, is China's goal.

Also, under Marx's original vision, the state was never supposed to be the focal point. It was only meant to be a tool to benefit the proletariat.

More or less that's what the CCP's campaign of the "Chinese Dream" is openly saying these days - the economy has become strong enough that everyone should be able to attain at least a decent standard of living and we're going to continue to work to make things better for the people from there.

How is this any different than the unabashedly capitalist "American Dream?"

It's possible things could swing the other way in the future, but for now I'd consider it relatively socialist politically. Economically it's more ... pragmatic I suppose, but likely a better choice in that sense than being sanctioned into oblivion as happened to the DPRK/Cuba/even Russia these days. China's playing the long game, I think, of becoming economically powerful enough to have some sway on the world market/economy, and it's really starting to pay off.

But will this lead to socialism? I don't see that happening, especially when China's very rich corporate class is eventually told ("down the road") to give up control of their businesses and vast financial reserves. I can't imagine that would go well at all; an ending other than bourgeois revolution seems unthinkable.

Really, China is simply state capitalist at this point.

Where I would fault the CCP most harshly is that they've somewhat lapsed in creating a socialist superstructure. I've traveled to Vietnam and the DPRK as well, and when you walk down the streets in say Ho Chi Minh City or Pyongyang, you see communist banners, murals with slogans like "Serve the people wholeheartedly", "work together for a better future", etc.

Meanwhile the majority of the population starves (at least those who aren't rotting away in Kim's death camps).

Marxist socialism sounds good in theory, but everywhere it's been played out (the USSR, Mao's China, Vietnam, and especially the "Democratic" "People's" "Republic" of Korea) it's been disastrous for the people. Contrast that with an enlightened centrism that sees a role for capitalism but tries to bring it in line with human benefit--like what we see in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, etc. Which one is more prosperous?

Out of curiosity, might I ask what tendency of Marxist you were?

I was a libertarian "council" Marxist, leaning toward De Leonism. I believed that was the least oppressive, most beneficial form of the ideology.

Though if we're derailing this thread too much, I'm happy to go elsewhere.[/quote]

[ThePeopleAreMyGod]

Deng's words may have been socialist, but his actions clearly steered China toward integration with the global capitalist economic system (and his successors have only moved further in that direction). Actions speak louder than words, and there is very little "socialism" remaining in post-Deng China. If there is anything "revolutionary" left in China, it's not from the party insiders or mainstream politicians, who seem to have become the establishment in every sense of the word.

Depends I guess. Mao, not Deng, normalized relations with the US under Nixon - which I feel on both sides really was as much to spite the USSR during the Sino-Soviet Split (which is its own debacle) as anything else.

Every Party Member I've met has at least a solid understanding of theory. For the most part, one is able to join the Party during their university years only after a fair amount of study of theory/writing essays/etc. Internally, they seem to know the theory fairly well. They just aren't doing a particularly good of promoting it to the "normal" Chinese people. There's a fairly large ideological disconnect there.

This, in my opinion, is a massive understatement: Mao orchestrated the slaughter of millions of his own citizens, and his failed agricultural policies led to the starvation of millions more. He seems to be the epitome of a failed despotic leader who essentially killed off a revolution.

This is quite a long discussion on its own potentially. I guess in short, I'm certainly not going to defend everything he did, but neither do I take Western historians exactly at face value here. He's a complicated figure historically, but I think at least insofar as being an ideological and personal center-point for the revolution, he made the Chinese revolution. With all its faults and all its gains. Perhaps the CCP might have won out without his military expertise - who knows? - but it'd be a very different China indeed. Even Deng credited him as the foundation of Chinese Communism.

I doubt Lenin would support the massive capitalist investments that today's China is making worldwide and within its own borders. It seems as though profit, not socialism, is China's goal.

The USSR early in its history tolerated some private ownership of capital. And it probably would have been screwed if not for the lend-lease program with the United States. Ultimately, geopolitics trumps economic idealism in the short term. It's hard to build socialism, or anything really, if you're sanctioned to death and cut off from the resources of most of the rest of the world (which really, is what I think is what is responsible for most of the hardships current and historical socialist states have faced).

Also, under Marx's original vision, the state was never supposed to be the focal point. It was only meant to be a tool to benefit the proletariat.

I'm aware. He also predicted that socialist revolutions would first take place in advanced capitalist nations. Marx was a brilliant social scientist, and quite possibly the first to even think of applying the scientific method to social questions, but the simple fact remains that he was merely a writer, a thinker, not a doer. Marx himself participated in no revolution to build a state; he knew nothing, firsthand of the inner workings of statecraft or what actually has to be done.

What Marx gave us was not a set of dogmas, but a set of tools. And I think Lenin put those tools to fairly good use, and where Classical Marxism didn't pan out, made corrections where necessary to get the job done.

The state's purpose is to serve and uplift the people, of course. But a state needs a certain amount of power and a certain amount of resources first to reach such a goal.

How is this any different than the unabashedly capitalist "American Dream?"

The focus I suppose on the nation as a whole, on ensuring that every individual benefits from the increasing prosperity of the economy instead of increasing wealth disparities, as a goal?

But will this lead to socialism? I don't see that happening, especially when China's very rich corporate class is eventually told ("down the road") to give up control of their businesses and vast financial reserves. I can't imagine that would go well at all; an ending other than bourgeois revolution seems unthinkable.

Really, China is simply state capitalist at this point.

There are certain safeguards in place, I feel, to keep that from happening.

In addition to the large percentage of the private sector that is either state-owned or the state has a controlling interest in, every factory is required to have a local branch of the CCP. As long as they keep proper discipline, that should be sufficient, I think, to ensure party control of things.

Meanwhile the majority of the population starves (at least those who aren't rotting away in Kim's death camps).

Marxist socialism sounds good in theory, but everywhere it's been played out (the USSR, Mao's China, Vietnam, and especially the "Democratic" "People's" "Republic" of Korea) it's been disastrous for the people. Contrast that with an enlightened centrism that sees a role for capitalism but tries to bring it in line with human benefit--like what we see in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, etc. Which one is more prosperous?

I've been to the DPRK twice, and while it's far from an insanely wealthy nation, they aren't starving presently. Even otherwise hostile news agencies such as Al Jazeerah have admitted as much.

Interestingly, the DPRK actually had a stronger economy per-capita than the ROK for much of its history. Prior to the collapse of the USSR and the strengthening of US sanctions, it actually had a respectable enough economy relative to other Asian nations. The 90s were its economic nadir, when it did in fact have a crisis of famine and starvation (and the KWP admits as much actually). Sanctions can really screw up the economy of nations - even large ones like China and Russia - which is why I think the CCP was probably wise in their own right to try to avoid being placed in that position.

It's actually growing surprisingly fast economically as well. Pyongyang is supposed to be expanding as much as 10% a year. There's a whole district of newly built (2012+) apartments. Basically every visible square foot of flat land that I saw on the several hundred miles of highway I rode along there is being farmed.

And its prison system is nowhere near the scale per capita or in total numbers of the US.

It's not a hugely wealthy nation, sure. But I think if one takes an objective look at things, there are definitely nations with worse conditions than it - and the sanctions sure as hell aren't helping matters.

(If you're interested in seeing some images of the day-to-day life there that aren't from overtly hostile sources, feel free to check out this project by a professional photographer who's traveled there dozens of times: http://www.dprk360.com/ Interesting, if nothing else, I think.)

If one took away Scandinavia's oil reserves and put it under the same sort of sanctions and otherwise geopolitical position that the DPRK is in, do you really expect it would have such a strong economy? Let alone bombing out all its infrastructure during the war, and essentially forcing them to build from zero. Or having the most heavily funded military on the planet sitting right across their border, necessitating a fairly large military of their own as deterrence? So sure, Scandinavia and the like are more prosperous. But that's really comparing apples to oranges.

Vietnam, by comparison, which has stayed "culturally" socialist, but doesn't have US sanctions (and was allowed to reunify under socialism) actually is a fairly nice place to live. Legitimately I wouldn't mind living in Ho Chin Minh City. And I would imagine that minus the sanctions, a unified socialist Korea would look relatively similar.

The DPRK has a fair amount of its own problems, but the caricature you see in the media of half-truths, the bad and never the good, I feel doesn't really paint an accurate picture. Just as China is significantly different from my impressions of it before I came here, so is the DPRK. Or anywhere on earth really. The ideas of the place you get from the media never really match the reality of it. The only difference is that most available media on the DPRK is unabashedly hostile.

I was a libertarian "council" Marxist, leaning toward De Leonism. I believed that was the least oppressive, most beneficial form of the ideology.

Though if we're derailing this thread too much, I'm happy to go elsewhere.

Hmm, fair enough. Actually, it's getting absurdly late here, and I have work in the morning, so it's probably best for me to bid you adieu at this point. But it's definitely been an interesting chat thus far - at least I hope you feel the same.

I guess in fairness to all others here, though, it might be better to take this conversation elsewhere - PMs or one of the more relevant forums here?

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 329 by ThePeopleAreMyGod]

Hi ThePeople. Your screen name caught my eye. I've read a little on topics like Marxist socialism (though I doubt I'm as informed as you).

Are you at all open to believing in Jesus? If not I wont trouble you, but otherwise we may be able to have an interesting debate or two.

[ThePeopleAreMyGod]

[Replying to post 329 by ThePeopleAreMyGod]

Hi ThePeople. Your screen name caught my eye. I've read a little on topics like Marxist socialism (though I doubt I'm as informed as you).

Are you at all open to believing in Jesus? If not I wont trouble you, but otherwise we may be able to have an interesting debate or two.

Hey there.

It's fair enough. As a former Christian myself, I've read the Bible, but as it's been a few years since I lapsed, and I never hugely read up on it, I'm not huge on all the formal theological arguments as well.

I guess I try to be as open as possible to all ideas to the degree they seem to hold merit. So I guess to clarify in what context you would mean believing in Jesus? If you mean believing him as a supernatural entity, I'm not particularly convinced that the supernatural exists (or at least that we would have an means of making verifiable claims about it). I'm at least a methodological materialist, if not necessarily epistomological. So it would seem if that's the question, I'm interested, but it seems like a rather large hurdle to overcome. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say though.

Alternatively, if it's just a matter of believing in the social teachings ascribed to Jesus, I've had a fair amount of discussions with my Chinese Christian friend, and we've already agreed to somewhat of a synthesis of our philosophies. In her eyes, Jesus came to humans to teach us to be like God. Which to me is only really a semantic difference from my own goals - that is, while I don't particularly believe in the supernatural, I don't really have any hangups with using "God" as a symbolic term for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. Thus, the more power, the more knowledge mankind gains, and the more just of a society we create for ourselves, the closer we are to "God".

I guess put simply the central thesis of Maoism/KimIlSungism is that the fundamental difference between humans and other animals is that we can actively imagine a different set of material conditions and work towards creating them ("being in God's image" to use supernatural language, I suppose...?). Historically, this has materialized in different civilizations, scientific progress, etc. And in this era, the fundamental struggle is to ensure the existence of a state that guarantees to every human being the necessities of life and those resources to fundamentally better themselves. From there, technology and science can be directly employed to fundamentally improve mankind itself. Mankind transforming itself into "gods" through science applied to human needs, if that makes any sense?

On that level, I actually rather like the teachings attributed to Christ that humans should look to "heaven" and "God" as a symbol of what we are to strive to become. The only problem, from a Marxist perspective, is when such symbology is instead manipulated by the ruling classes to promote resignation to current injustices and stagnation (ie. "Don't rebel against your oppressors. Be obedient and righteous and you'll gain eternal life and reward after you die; pray and leave it to the big man in the sky, any action on your part to right things would be sinful." )

So, as for the "Jesus" that my Chinese friend seems to believe in, he seems to be on the right side of history. The "Jesus" of the Pope is up there too, haha. The "Jesus" of the church that props up the interests of the ruling class is the enemy of most of mankind. So it's all in the interpretation I guess?

Thoughts? I'm certainly interested in a discussion, I just kind of want to maybe clarify where both of us are coming from first?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 331 by ThePeopleAreMyGod]

Is there necessarily any supernatural component to any of this?

[ThePeopleAreMyGod]

[Replying to post 331 by ThePeopleAreMyGod]

Is there necessarily any supernatural component to any of this?

The way I use the terms, not necessarily. What I mean by describing the people as a "God" I suppose is just a twofold metaphor:

1. One who shares this philosophy with me should have the highest possible devotion to serving the interests of mankind, in all ways, at all possible costs. This is to be our highest devotion, much as a religious person might to their conception of God.
2. "Mankind is the master of everything and decides everything." I feel that the only difference, really, between humans and other animals is that we have the ability to envision a different set of material conditions and through science, reason, and labor, work towards them if we properly collaborate towards such a goal. We've reached the point now that, forseeably, in most of our lifetimes, our current technology and scientific understanding will allow us to transform ourselves directly (genetic engineering, cybernetics, computer implants in the brain, genetically engineered retroviruses to repair DNA, nanobots to fight infections/toxins and repair cells). In turn this will give us yet more ability to imagine and eventually create more changes to our environment and ourselves, and in doing so, if such an effort is properly guided by a concern for the people, we will grow ever-closer towards a state of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - that traits classically associated with a "God".

It's more or less equivalent to what Nietzsche would have meant by the term "Ubermensch", I think, but "God" is a lot more "accessible" as a metaphor to most people in the West, or even China I've found. And it's not really an innovation on my part. Kim Il Sung used such language fairly extensively; his grandfather had been a Presbyterian and a lot of Koreans at the time were Christians, so he was at least tangentially familiar with this way of thinking.

To me, there's no supernatural element to any of this other than symbology. I'm not really convinced that the supernatural exists (or that it could even meaningfully refer to anything, as it would seem that all that exists - "magical" or otherwise - would be a part of nature, the sum total of all existing things). If there is some other existence beyond our own - well, that's certainly possible I suppose - but by the same measure, it would seem to have to be so separate from our reality as to have no measurable effect on it, so I don't see how one could claim to have any knowledge of it at all while being here. That, I suppose, is my biggest reason for not ascribing to any religious belief system; while some of them may have decent social teachings, they can be found just as well outside, and any claims about the supernatural seem irrelevant at best, and a dangerous distraction at worst, to the struggle to build a better world here and now in the only world we know exists.

So when I referred to "Jesus" in the earlier post, I was referring mainly to the character described in the Gospels. From my perspective, I'm uncertain if it actually describes a historical person who has become legendized by his followers with the passing of time, or an entirely fictitious character. Really though, practically that doesn't matter insofar as I can address his claims - just as it is debatable whether or not Socrates actually existed or was an invention of Plato, but philosophers still discuss philosophies ascribed to Socrates, I feel I can do the same in regards to Jesus, particularly as the words ascribed to him have such influence in the modern world.

In short, I like a lot, but not all, of the social teachings ascribed to Jesus. I don't believe in any supernatural claims made - at least short of some compelling evidence to believe in them that I've never seen. And I wish, if he actually existed and had had supernatural powers, that he would have actually used them to help liberate the oppressed peoples of his day (say as Moses is said to have done).

Now, on the flip side, could a person believe in the supernatural and hold, essentially to my philosophy? Sure. There's plenty of examples in the real world. Liberation Theology, for instance, is a synthesis of Christianity's social teachings with Marxism and is big in parts of Latin America. Chavez was an adherent and even had had aspirations of becoming a priest prior to entering politics instead.

If someone could convince me that the supernatural existed, it certainly would be a very interesting revelation, but I don't think it'd do much to shake the core of my philosophy. Even if it does exist, we, and billions of other fellow humans, still have to live and share this world; so while we're here, I feel we should apply science to the question of meeting as many human needs as possible. And hopefully any just God out there who might possibly exist would look on this as a noble goal. I'd just question why he's done so remarkably little to help us accomplish it.

[Wissing]

[Replying to ThePeopleAreMyGod]

I am of the mindset that the supernatural component of Christianity is paramount. I don't think the pursuit of a higher value can be separated from the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual. For that reason, if we were to have a discussion, my express intent would be to help you overcome any stumbling blocks to a reasonable, evident, and fruitful relationship with Jesus Christ, and a secondary intent would be my own spiritual and intellectual maturity.

That being said, we could discuss social issues. I don't think it would be beneficial to do formal theological arguments. I am particularly interested in the liberation of the poor, because that was a teaching of Jesus. However, Jesus defined liberation differently than Marx, or even the revolutionaries of his day for that matter.

From what are the poor (or the people, if you wish) being liberated? Marx would say external forces - the oppression of the bourgeoisie, for instance. Jesus would say internal forces - the demonic influences that perpetually attack the heart of a human being. For Marx, the solution was political and economic. For Jesus the solution was ethical and spiritual. Here we have vastly different approaches to the same problem: oppression. On which liberation should we focus our attention?

That's a discussion I think I'd be willing to have, if you'd like. We could do a discussion or a debate, or just a chat - any way works for me. Note that I will be out of town this coming weekend, so I wouldn't be able to get things going until at least the 2nd week of October.

[Haven]

From what are the poor (or the people, if you wish) being liberated? Marx would say external forces - the oppression of the bourgeoisie, for instance. Jesus would say internal forces - the demonic influences that perpetually attack the heart of a human being. For Marx, the solution was political and economic. For Jesus the solution was ethical and spiritual. Here we have vastly different approaches to the same problem: oppression. On which liberation should we focus our attention?

I think this is a false dichotomy. It's possible to be both economically and ethically liberated. Pushing for one or the other seems to be a major blind spot of both (mainstream) Marxism and (mainstream) Christianity.

[charles1961]

Hi my name is Charles I'm 53 years of age grew up Pentecostal Holiness, very Conservative political minded man. I have a list of experiences in my life from working in tobacco fields as a youngster, working in a hosiery mill in High school to joining the Air Force 81150, police officer, for a couple of years, lastly a very good plumber.

[puddleglum]

Welcome to the forum. It sounds as if you have lived a very interesting life.