Are Consumerism and planned Obsolescence Really Bad?

[otjm]

China and Vietnam are actually not anti-capitalist.

I don’t think I have said differently; however, of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, all of them believed in a government run economy - with a possible exception of Mao, and given his actions I am not entirely sure how to label them.

And while China and Vietnam have more government controls over the economy that the free world, they have most definitely engaged in a strong pro-capitalism which is an almost complete about-face of where they started.

One of the more interesting reactions has been the number oc countries who are taking an honest look into the bargains they havve made with the devil - the Belt and Road initiative. Whether and how they are going to extract themselves from control, direct or indirect of the CCP remains to be seen, but the spread of the virus and the responsibility or lack thereof on China’s part has brought about a bit of clarity of the dance they have entered into and their dance partner.

The New Green Deal may or may not be Marxist, but it is being pushed by Marxists, and the language of our street Marxists is clearly anti-capitalist. ;And past all the rhetoric is an issue of human nature; Marxism has a vastly different view of human nature than what underlies capitalism, the social gospel of the Church, and the better part of all countries with capitalism in its various forms.

Arguing that Marx was against private ownership is correct in and of itself, but misses the base of his philosophy which pushed his agenda. The CCP has a large number of billionaires - I counted up to 167 and didn’t get to the end of it. But if anyone even hints at thinking that the CCP is not rigidly in control, particularly of thought, isn’t paying attention. Their work in face recognition software is the leading edge, and they continue to push it. For what purpose?

Control. You can be a good little billionaire, but you had better not start meeting with anyone the CCP deems undesirable.

And now we are fairly well off topic.

 

[ralfyman]

I am responding to the sentence, “Our indigenous Marxists (primarily those under 30 and their professors) are anti capitalists - never mind that two primary Marxist countries - China and Vietnam, have both figured out that Marx had no clue what he was talking about, and neither did Lenon, Stalin or Mao.”

Marxists are not anti-capitalists; rather, they are against private ownership of the means of production. That’s also why China and Vietnam are not “Marxist countries” but countries with mixed economies. Also, I don’t think they figured out that Marx “had no clue what he was talking about” but the opposite, which is why they aren’t following U.S.-style neoliberalism. If any, the model that an East Asian one, which involves state-sponsored capitalism and was employed by countries ranging from Japan to Taiwan.

Next, I think the Belt and Road initiative is the result of the rise of BRICS and forty emerging markets as OECD countries begin to weaken do to rising debts and high levels of spending, both of which are related to the topic thread. If it’s some metaphorical deal with the devil, then it’s a shift from one devil to another, with the first being the U.S. The difference is that it’s now a multi-polar one driven by soft power in contrast to one driven by hard power and warmongering courtesy of the No. 1 arms dealer of the world.

The New Green Deal is being pushed not only by Marxists but also by environmentalists and various scientists, and the reasons are global warming coupled with environmental damage and the threat of a resource crunch. But it’s not doable because history has shown the opposite of cooperation and coordination between countries.

The belief that capitalism is connected to human nature is absurd. Capitalism involves virtual wealth used to capitalize operations, and with competition driven by maximization of profits and with the least regulation. That’s why the Church wants something between Communism and capitalism.

The base of Marx’s philosophy is actually that, and the presence of billionaires in the CCP is proof that the vision of both Marxism and capitalism is literally utopia, i.e., it’s nowhere.

Rigid control was actually promoted not by Communism but by capitalism, as part of increasing efficiency. Communists employed it as part of state capitalism and industrialization.

Finally, the reason why billionaires in China have to behave is because it’s the CCP that controls the country. In contrast is the U.S., which is controlled by billionaires. But both countries still face consumerism and planned obsolescence because that’s the result of capitalism driven by competition and maximization of profit.

 

[otjm]

Marxists are not anti-capitalists; rather, they are against private ownership of the means of production. That’s also why China and Vietnam are not “Marxist countries” but countries with mixed economies.

CCP: Chinese Communist Party. You may well think they are not Marxists. I disagree.

You may not be paying attention to the people in the streets - specifically BLM and Antifa. You may not call them Marxists, although they are using Marxist tactics and they openly say they are Marxist trained.

It may well be that they are following an ideology they openly admit to being Marxist; you might want to sit down with them and tell them how wrong they are. I am willing to use the term they apply, and have absolutely no interest in an intellectual debate with you over the matter.

A Marxist tactic, stemming from their writings in the 1920’s: “Use Race, and create race riots to throw the country into chaos”.

I watched the same tactics used in the 1960’s with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Black Panthers; in the late 1970’s early 1980’s it appeared with the group(s) Susan Rosenberg worked with, including bombings and major robberies - she still identifies herself as Marxist.

The belief that capitalism is connected to human nature is absurd.

I never said that capitalism is connected to human nature. I said that the Marxists have a radically different view of human nature than does the Catholic Church; and I will reference John Paul 2 and leave it at that. “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” is another place you might start.

Whatever name you want to put on the philosophy which is driving BLM and Antifa is fine, as long as you get out there and correct the people who are using the tactics - which themselves were identified as Marxist 100 years ago.,

Good luck with that.

Have a great day.

 

[ralfyman]

What I mean is that China and Vietnam are not Marxist but mixed economies. They are led by Communist Parties but part of the economy involves public corporations and others private. They also have corporations that are partnered with several from the U.S., Europe, and others.

I don’t think BLM and Antifa are Marxist-trained, i.e., they were taught by cadres of Communist parties. Rather, they use critical race theories which were first taught in U.S. law schools in the late 1980s. The same goes for SDS and the Panthers: what they want isn’t so much a Communist state but one that advocates more freedom for people outside what private corporations provide. In fact, the equivalent of that would have been Chinese youth who protested in Tiananmen.

About human nature, here’s what you wrote: “The New Green Deal may or may not be Marxist, but it is being pushed by Marxists, and the language of our street Marxists is clearly anti-capitalist. ;And past all the rhetoric is an issue of human nature; Marxism has a vastly different view of human nature than what underlies capitalism, the social gospel of the Church, and the better part of all countries with capitalism in its various forms.”

To recap what I wrote earlier, Marxism is not anti-capitalist. Rather, it’s against private ownership of the means of production, which means it only supports state capitalism.

Second, what is the capitalist view of human nature? AFAIK, it has none. Capitalism is the economic process where surplus revenue in the form of money is reinvested in business operations to increase production (hence, capitalism), which in turn leads to more surplus revenues which are again re-invested. Where is the view of human nature in that? And how does Marxism go against that when it is only against private ownership of the means of production?

About “all animals are equal,” that is obviously a reference to Animal Farm. But doesn’t the same work attack both Communism and capitalism?

Finally, I think what’s driving BLM and Antifa isn’t Marxism or even Communism but political correctness, liberal attitudes, and relativism stemming from a society characterized by consumerism, planned obsolescence, and commercial mass entertainment, and in turn leading to materialism, narcissism, vices, and sociopathic behavior.

Arguing that they became so merely because they were exposed to leftist ideology is questionable, especially when one sees similar behavior among youths even in countries like China. More have been moving from farms to factories because pay is higher, in turn treated like machines to make products sold to the upwardly mobile and more (even the things we need to access this forum were likely made by them), and now want to move away from factories to the service industry, where they want to make more money, save to get better education, and thus earn even more in order to, among other things, buy the very same things that the upwardly mobile and middle class have, including those BLM and Antifa protesters.