The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because…
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
And don’t get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: “Moscow Never Sleeps.” Do you think that’s just because people there don’t feel like sleeping? …))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
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.
The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its “final form,” such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev’s farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road.
You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in.
I recognize the American socialist in you… )))
Fifty years have passed—why has no one repeated this feat?
Just think how much more advanced technology has become over these 50 years…
Russia and China are already planning to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2030—though there are no humans there yet. China also recently launched a lunar rover—likewise without a human crew.
Meanwhile, since 2014, the U.S. has been relying on Russian services to transport its astronauts into space.
https://www.facebook.com/cgtneuropeofficial/videos/russian-spacecraft-delivers-american-astronaut-to-space-station/944741044208435/
Please answer this question for me: Is it conceivable that a country which flew to the Moon 50 years ago is now unable to find the means to transport its own astronauts into space—and instead asks what is, in essence, its adversary to do so? And pays them money for the privilege? Perhaps it is time to dust off the Apollo program, give it a major overhaul, and stop humiliating themselves before the Russians?
That sounds very sweet… )))
My metaphysics stem from the dark depths of the subconscious; I embrace the shadow—which means I stop denying reality! )))
Comrade, I believe I am communicating with you in English—why don’t you understand me?
These aren’t my fantasies; I lived in the USSR. Right now, I live in an apartment that the state gifted to my parents for their hard work. It’s a 70-square-meter apartment with four rooms and a kitchen. In your view, is that merely a figment of my imagination? )))))
Oh, Comrade—precisely because of your words, I now miss the USSR boundlessly, like a lost paradise!
If you don’t believe what I’m saying, it means only one thing: life in the USSR was fantastic!
Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
I am an empiricist.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
What do you have to say to that?
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
And don’t get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: “Moscow Never Sleeps.” Do you think that’s just because people there don’t feel like sleeping? …))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?)))
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
No. People do but just like how some European’s work 3 jobs doesn’t make it representative.
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.