Famine was ended via collectivization and industrialization, well before “market incentives” were introduced. The market wasn’t necessary, industrial equipment was. Also, “empires,” lmao.

As for centralization, I’m 100% award that market economies trend towards centralization. That’s my point. I’m confused what you think I’m trying to say, here.

As for your adventure in Hong Kong, you’re incredibly defensive of British colonialism and see anti-colonialism as China going back on promises to colonizers. This is ridiculous, lmao.

As for the definitions you provided, they are woefully underdeveloped and simplistic. Imperialism and colonialism are predicated on extraction, not mere influence, and an empire is necessarily a country that does imperialism. Extracting resources is not colonialism or imperialism. The limits of your definitions are immediately apparent. What’s important is the elimination of sovereignty, and the extraction of surplus value. There is no cultural erasure in Xinjiang nor Tibet.

As for your lies about sterilization, they come from Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz’ work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of “forced sterilization,” from this chart:

You get onto me for providing a source that links almost entirely western news sources when available, and has fact checked information, while talking about claims from Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation? Hilarious. I recommend actually reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz.

Please, be serious.

How is advocating for the eventual abolition of private property count as being timid towards landowners? It involves sweeping collectivization of land, something easily achievable and already done at scale in most socialist countries.

Regarding increased specialization alongside human knowledge, this is true at the level of the profession, not at the level of the worker. Work is designed to be as readily replacable as possible, wherever possible. An RF engineer working at NASA may have a learning curve, but the underlying basics of how to perform their job can be transfered to similar roles elsewhere. Practice and proficiency is helpful, yes, but we must consider these socially, not individually.

You entirely missed the point on carpentry, smithing, etc. These are almost entirely performed by machines in factories. Artisinal creation is step by step being abolished in favor of automated and machine assisted labor in large factories. So too will this apply to engineering, medicine, etc.

The idea that an advanced communist society would be unable to outcompete a market-based society in standard of living is as laughable as the idea of a feudal society outcompeting a capitalist society. For starters, communism must be a global system. Beyond that, communism rests in highly advanced productive forces too large in scale for markets to function to begin with, so even if we had a hypothetical communism in one country, there would be no need to go to a market-based society just like there’s no need to go to feudal societies for a higher standard of living.

The necessity for these advanced productive forces is exactly why communism does not yet exist, just like nuclear fusion as an energy source at scale does not. It needs to be built up, not simply willed into existence at the stroke of a pen.

You have no clue what you’re suggesting, no matter how many times I state it.

The USSR ended famine in the 1930s, after it collectivized and industrialized agriculture with combine-harvestors. Outside of wartime, there were no more famines. China went through a similar route, once they had industrialized agriculture, famine became a fact of history, not an active threat. Famine had been common to both regions under semi-feudal relations of agriculture, which is low in productivity and weak to adverse weather.

Regarding the tendency for markets to centralize, this is a fact. Scholarly research backs this up heavily with empirical data. This isn’t “gospel,” it’s how markets work. Of course economics is complex, and of course I have to simplify it for Lemmy comments, especially when you cannot even grasp the passing of time resulting in gradual change.

As for your adventures in Hong Kong, you deliberately referred to the colonial era as “cool,” and the part where China regained its sovereignty as bad. Tibetans and Uyghurs are Chinese. They are not Han, but Han people living in Xinjiang and Tibet are not colonizers. Immigration is not colonialism. Colonialism is a relationship between exploiter and exploited, and central China is not exploiting periphery China. Xinjiang and Tibet both have regional autonomy within the broader system of China.

As for the claims of forced labor, these are false. I already provided evidence of this. Annexation of land is not colonialism, just like the Statesian North annexing the Statesian South is not colonialism. Connolly would be upset that you make light of actual colonialism by listening to the propaganda of the actually existing imperialist and neocolonial powers, such as the UK and US, who still have Ireland under their thumb to this day.

It is an oversimplification, but I believe the base of it is the base of conflict here. Do you think we should preserve capitalism, or should we move on from it? Do you think socialism would be nice, but have no plan to get there beyond electoralism, or do you have centuries of historical practice to look to for inspiration? I deliberately said the “left” in vague terms because even if I may disagree with anarchists, I can align with them on moving beyond capitalism. These two groups, the left and the liberal, form the most opposing sides in Lemmy bickering.

I’ll also stand in defense of the “-ism.” I am a Marxist-Leninist. This means I accept Marx’s theories on the law of value, the scientific approach to socialism guided by class struggle and historical materialism, as well as dialectical materialism as a world outlook. It also means I agree with Lenin on his analysis of imperialism, the strategy and tactics of the Leninist party structure, and the necessity to support national liberation movements. Telling someone that I’m an ML lets them know right away that I agree with these things.

Maybe someday.

That’s very low, considering the cost of equipment lost, and the economic damages from the increased cost of oil due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. I’m fairly certain this is lowballing it tremendously.

AI does have legitimate use-cases as something very good at pattern recognition. Because of that, it’s helpful in manufacturing and agriculture, which is why China is prioritizing efficiency and being low-overhead. The US sees it as a threat, because their models are prioritizing profits and wild promises to gain investment, and this is why they will lose the “race.”

The actual second space is going on right now with the race to colonize the moon, funny enough.

The resolution of the left/liberal conflict. Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists have mostly ironed out our differences to the point of at least being cordial, but liberals and the left still butt heads. Considering Lemmy is never going to not have the left, it will require either the liberals leaving, defederating, or converting to the left. I know you said no politics, but that’s really the basis of ending the toxicity that does exist here.

How is it a self-burn? I don’t think communists are typically ashamed of being communists. Are you saying they should be ashamed of being a communist?

It’s important to understand that capitalists do not run China. The CPC dictates how AI is treated. Chinese capitalists may have tried to make money off of AI like their western counterparts, but this is biting them hard when the CPC clearly demands that AI be developed in an alternative direction. The capitalist class may be trying to use AI as an investment vehicle, but they do not have a say in whether or not that actually comes to pass in a practical manner.

A good analogy is the housing industry. Real estate was made an investment vehicle by the capitalist class, only for the CPC to intentionally deflate the housing market. Housing prices fell, which cost lots of Chinese capitalists lots of money, but they had no say in the matter. The CPC dictated that houses were for living, not speculation, and then capitalists were forced to deal with the reality set without their consent.

The chain of events is pretty clear:

1. The provisional government becomes deeply unpopular, for massacring protestors and supporting continuing World War I.

2. The SRs have popularity, especially among the peasantry, and win the Provisional government elections despite a split weeks before. The Left SRs support overthrowing the provisional government and replacing it with the Soviet government.

3. The Bolsheviks, this time, already have better support among the urban workers, and the Petrograd Soviet votes to overthrow the provisional government, and actually has the power to do so.

4. The SRs continue to fracture, and while they were popular among the peasantry for a time, the Bolsheviks swap tactics and advocate for land reform among the peasantry. This is the “land” part of “Peace, Land, and Bread.” The Bolsheviks support ending the war, which is popular, they support land reform, which is popular, and they support the needs of the urban workers, which is also popular.

5. As the SRs fall apart from their split, a bunch join the Bolsheviks, same as the Mensheviks, in solidifying Soviet Power. The Bolsheviks have been consistently correct the entire time, and do not have the same fracturing due to practicing Democratic Centralism. They succeed in gaining influence and broadening it, resulting in the Soviet Union.

The idea that the Bolsheviks ever needed a mandate from the provisional government elections is wrong. Even if we assume the Left SRs had a mandate from those elections, the SRs supported overthrowing the provisional government anyways, and then the SRs fell apart while the Bolsheviks strengthened. At no point did Lenin alienate himself from the desires of the people, and in time the people became coalesced around the Bolsheviks.

Say you’re Lenin. What part would you do differently? Should they have stood by and not overthrown the provisional government, even though it was clear that that was what the workers wanted? Should they have not adopted land reform and won over the peasants, making them the most broadly supported platform? Should they have prevented the SRs from collapsing, or turned away their members requesting to join?

There’s no “sudden flood” of communists, Lemmy was and still is made by communists. Communists have been here the whole time. “Tankie” is just a pejorative for those that support existing socialism, so people proud of that own the label.

The Bolsheviks had broad support, the Left SRs were more among the peasantry. As I said, however, they both supported overthrowing the provisional government, which happened, and then support coalesced around the more correct Bolsheviks.

Asking you honestly, do you disagree with Lenin for going ahead with overthrowing the provisional government, or do you think the soviet government should have coalesced around the Left SRs simply because the provisional government swang that way? Which part was “undemocratic” in your view?

Not formally, no. In practice, due to World War I and the brewing civil war, the administrative failures of the Provisional Government, and the general chaos in Russia, voters were skewed heavily towards urban areas, while Russia was largely peasant at the time. The Bolsheviks were popular among the peasantry as well, and this is further backed by how the peasant soviet elections went.

In either case, the provisional government was deeply unpopular, and replacing it by soviet power was deeply popular. Carrying out the revolution was the correct action, and to go against the revolution would be to go against the people. The fact that the revolutionaries coalesced around the Bolsheviks after the fact does not mean that this was not the will of the people.

Key words “eligible voters.”

And I already said that most workers didn’t even bother voting in the provisional government elections, because the soviet government was the one that represented them, and that the election itself was hairy because the SRs had split shortly before the election without news spreading wide enough. Further, the left SRs did form a coalition with the Bolsheviks, and supported the revolution to overthrow the provisional government.

The elections in the provisional government, correct, not the soviets. You’re mixing up governments, the provisional government was the one supported largely by the liberal establishment. Further, the left and right SRs had a split right before the election without the majority of workers knowing, and further still the left SRs and Bolsheviks immediately formed a coalition in the peasant soviets. You may want to brush up on your history a bit.

I think the pressures are exaggerated. There’s a lot of money in discounting China’s approach, considering how much money is invested in the western approach. I agree, the volatility of the stock market in China does actually seem to point to it being more grounded.

I never dismissed costs of operation, simply that looking at stock market performance for AI in China to get a view of how it’s treated and where it stands is silly.

The vanguard is proletarian. It isn’t that they know better than the proletariat, it’s that the vanguard is the organized section of the proletariat, one that is disciplined and studies the science of revolution. Not every proletarian can afford the time or energy to do so, but this does not mean that nobody can.

As for Lenin going “full dictator,” the masses of the people supported the Bolsheviks, who coalesced the soviets into one established socialist state. There were various factions that opposed the Bolsheviks, and they lost the Civil War.