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.
No you still do not understand please reread what I’m saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn’t real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Now let’s go back to my very first post addressed to you—perhaps now you will understand what I meant back then.
And I will answer you… using your very own words, literally:
We are not talking about capitalism right now, but about socialism!
Verstehst?
No you still do not understand please reread what I’m saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn’t real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not.
Regarding my fantasies
https://itc.ua/blogi/dzhek-ma-ubezhden-chto-rabotat-nuzhno-po-12-chasov-v-sutki-shest-dney-v-nedelyu/
“Furthermore, Ma added that those wishing to join Alibaba must be prepared from the outset to work 12 hours a day.”
A member of the CPC and a leading Party official—Jack Ma. To be honest, I listened to him back in 2019, and my jaw dropped at the time.
He was in Kyiv once; I saw him speak.
Did people in the USSR work 16-hour days?
I’ll go even further: officially, holding two jobs in the USSR was prohibited by law.
As you wish.
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?
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.
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.
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.