State theory, was: Kiev Is Burning

[KV7]

59 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I'd posit that the above is just one of the periodical trends within the existing systems, with the exact kind of slow changes between different poles typical for Western democracies. Yeah, from the 80s deregulation and privatization became fashionable with Reagan and Thatcher, but others like France or Germany never followed to the same extent; arguably the high point was just after the millenium, before various crises showed the dangers of government retreating too much, and the electorate began to make its displeasure known about the effects. Locally we've seen a reverse trend for some years, and current crises are likely going to reinforce that.

It may be different in the US, as one of the trans-Atlantic culture disconnects is Europeans tending to puzzle how Americans keep embracing politics which to our eyes make an ever-growing share of them living in precarious economic conditions because those profiting tell them any deviation leads to Hell and Communism; but that again shows there is no common ideology ruling the West. In fact I suspect the attempt to identify one is just (non-Western) ideologues like Xi trying to analyse within their own frame of reference, and they just can't imagine that there is no such thing in other systems.

Certainly there is still considerable ideological and policy variation, but these can go along with neoliberal hegemony, in the same way that there was variation under the earlier postwar policy consensus. For example:

(1) All of the centre-left parties remain within a rather tight window for economic policy. Roughly the limit is the demarcation between social liberalism and social democracy. Adjustments to the details of policy is considered acceptable (for example one can make the tax system less or more progressive) but there is restricted freedom regarding mechanisms, with some such as public banking or nationalisation or rejection of means testing being considered almost verboten. A classic case here would be Blair trying to achieve policy results that traditionally would be achieved by public investment, but instead doing it via PFI.

(2) The neoliberal institutions (i.e. the mechanisms of technocratic restraint) receive consensus support, though there may be proposals for reform.

On (2) a good recent example that may be salient to Germans would be Olaf Scholz in 2021 urging for a quick reinstatement of the 'constitutional debt brake'. Or to some extent the general respect for the 'schwarze null'.



 

Edited July 10, 2022 by KV7

[Stefan Kotsch]

27 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

And this is relevant to the inability of the German political class to correct mistakes say in energy or agricultural policy in what way? 

This is probably another chapter of inappropriate decisions. No, I just wanted to point out that even democracy itself can become encrusted, although reforms are needed.

[BansheeOne]

18 minutes ago, KV7 said:

(2) The neoliberal institutions (i.e. the mechanisms of technocratic restraint) receive consensus support, though there may be proposals for reform.

On (2) a good recent example that may be salient to Germans would be Olaf Scholz in 2021 urging for a quick reinstatement of the 'constitutional debt brake'. Or to some extent the general respect for the 'schwarze null'.

Well, adhering to mechanisms which have consensus support definitely is a mark of Western democracy. That goes for the German debt cap (fundamentally, Germans are fiscally conservative at heart - though the same majority electorate which takes the proverbial "good housewife" approach to public debts will also agree on better social security and punished the Social Democrats for the Hartz welfare reforms; nobody said voters are logical), or the British NHS, or Norway's government pension fund. I guess I just don't see that change is going in only one direction.

[Roman Alymov]

21 hours ago, KV7 said:

  Once the party loses the control of the ideology, Xi argues, once it fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for its own rule, objectives and purposes, it dissolves into a party of loosely connected individuals linked only by personal goals of enrichment and power.

The party is then taken over by “ideological nihilism”. While in some cases, this ideological void caused by the disappearance of communist ideology was filled by nationalism, it was almost nowhere filled by liberalism (as I argued many years ago in this piece, namely that the revolutions of 1989 were not revolutions of democracy but of national independence and self-determination). This however was not –as we can see from Xi’s speech—the worst outcome. The worst outcome, and perhaps what Xi fears for China, is that the country be taken over by people with no ideology whatsoever but with an entirely cynical and self-serving desire to rule. This is what happened in Russia where the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was succeeded, and the country hijacked, by the ideological nihilists of the intelligence services.'

Unfortunatelly i can't check it with Chineese source, but if Xi really said that, then it is indication of Chineese officials, despite of great efforts of their scientists who were studying the collapse of USSR, failed to understand why and how this collapse happened. In USSR Communist Party have not lost "control of the ideology" till the very last days. In reality, the very ideologists of Communist Party became the carriers if consumerism ( what is rightly described as "it dissolves into a party of loosely connected individuals linked only by personal goals of enrichment and power").

    As result, the Communist Party itself became the group of "ideological nihilists" (see for example chief ideologist of Communist Party in Ukraine becoming first President of "independent Ukraine"). The process started back in late 1950th when joining Comunist Party became just mandatory step on career ladder to money and power, not the right to be the first to stand up for attack under MG fire. By late 1980th, the mass of this "consumerists" reached top seats.....

[KV7]

24 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Unfortunatelly i can't check it with Chineese source, but if Xi really said that, then it is indication of Chineese officials, despite of great efforts of their scientists who were studying the collapse of USSR, failed to understand why and how this collapse happened. In USSR Communist Party have not lost "control of the ideology" till the very last days. In reality, the very ideologists of Communist Party became the carriers if consumerism ( what is rightly described as "it dissolves into a party of loosely connected individuals linked only by personal goals of enrichment and power").

    As result, the Communist Party itself became the group of "ideological nihilists" (see for example chief ideologist of Communist Party in Ukraine becoming first President of "independent Ukraine"). The process started back in late 1950th when joining Comunist Party became just mandatory step on career ladder to money and power, not the right to be the first to stand up for attack under MG fire. By late 1980th, the mass of this "consumerists" reached top seats.....

I do not think there is a very big difference of interpretation. Xi seems to be referring to the 'true believers' losing control in the party to the careerists and 'reformers' etc. and the Marxist ideology being reproduced on paper but increasingly as a sort of window dressing.

In any case it is an implicit attack on Jiang Zemin etc. who seemed to to reduce the 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' to a coat of red paint on an empty vessel to be filled with whatever pragmatically fits.

Xi's article is somewhat clear in intent if you read between the lines:

'First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine.

In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress.'






 

[Roman Alymov]

25 minutes ago, KV7 said:

I do not think there is a very big difference of interpretation. Xi seems to be referring to the 'true believers' losing control in the party to the careerists and 'reformers' etc. and the Marxist ideology being reproduced on paper but increasingly as a sort of window dressing.

In any case it is an implicit attack on Jiang Zemin etc. who seemed to to reduce the 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' to a coat of red paint on an empty vessel to be filled with whatever pragmatically fits.

Xi's article is somewhat clear in intent if you read between the lines:

'First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine.

In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress.'

Thank you for correction. Anyway, with all this rhetoric, the main question is to what extent people pushing "scientific socialism" on paper really believe in it. Only time will show.

[KV7]

19 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Thank you for correction. Anyway, with all this rhetoric, the main question is to what extent people pushing "scientific socialism" on paper really believe in it. Only time will show.

Personally I am skeptical, as the chauvinistic nihilism has already taken hold to some large extent though it really is now in reverse. For example until recently the typical Chinese nationalist would give a strident endorsement of China, but without any sort of systemic analysis at all, beyond 'our leaders are good and they get to lead without frustration by a retarded public, lobbyists, etc.' i.e. it amounts to not much more then an assertion of having better people and a better culture and a skepticism about democracy.

The emerging view now among the 'non elite politcal class' is that the Chinese system has identifiable strengths and the West has identifiable weaknesses, and these are also explicable in economic terms (i.e. the advantage isn't just a  good leadership but one with effective economic levers - ones like state owned banks and comprehensive industry policy that do not exist in the west) and so the idea that slow convergence to the U.S. model with some local peculiarities is the correct model has been decisively rejected in favor of constructing some sort of alternative system. Whether that alternative system can rightly be called socialism is an open question.

To some large extent Xi was taken on some of the program of the Chinese New left (and Bo Xilai) but without that left wing getting any power or accolades. He has also adopted some of the rhetoric of the nationalist right but has kept them also at arms length (there is a speculation they are actually more bellicose than he thinks is safe). The big factional losers have been the liberal pro convergence faction.
 

[Josh]

 

7 hours ago, Huba said:

@ink Nobody's denying that there are problems, but all those that you listed pale compared to issues in non-democratic countries. Seriously, I can't think of any that is doing better relatively, at least as far as personal and political  liberties and standard of living are concerned.

I agree though that UE is in a need of reform now, especially if a number of new members is to be admitted in the next decade. Getting rid of some of the unanimity in decision making would be a good start. And more efficient mechanisms to deal with rule-of-law violations in the members state too. Thing is, this things are within reach - as Stefan pointed out, democracy is capable of self-improvement much more so than systems based on personalities.

Every form of government is generally a collection of compromises. I don’t think authoritarian governments necessarily lack longevity but I think any form of government that centers on one individual has inherent risks that almost always cause instability in the long run. Whatever Xi May say about nihilism and ideology is rather meaningless IMO compared to cult of personality he’s developed to fulfill his goals. From outside his government looks very much like power for powers sake, with Chinese characteristics. It should also be noted that the US and UK have much more continuity of government than say Russia or China. My mom was born before the current form of Chinese government was established; the jury is very much out on its usefulness and longevity.

[Ivanhoe]

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Thank you for correction. Anyway, with all this rhetoric, the main question is to what extent people pushing "scientific socialism" on paper really believe in it. Only time will show.

Jordan Peterson had a quote that I recall as roughly "if you don't know what someone is thinking, look at what they do."

In this context, if they are preaching one particular political philosophy but acting like an oligarch, thugatarian, or whatever, the latter is probably what they really believe in.

[Ivanhoe]

8 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

This is probably another chapter of inappropriate decisions. No, I just wanted to point out that even democracy itself can become encrusted, although reforms are needed.

Obligatory Churchill quote;

Quote

“Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
—Winston Churchill

Heck, less than a decade after the US Constitution was ratified, our Founding Fathers were sounding the alarm. Democracies are populated by humans, a fatal trait.

[KV7]

4 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Jordan Peterson had a quote that I recall as roughly "if you don't know what someone is thinking, look at what they do."

In this context, if they are preaching one particular political philosophy but acting like an oligarch, thugatarian, or whatever, the latter is probably what they really believe in.

What they are doing is explicable from the standpoint of 'mechanical Marxism'. Around 1975 or so the biggest barrier to achieving the 'higher state of socialism' was underdeveloped productive forces, so that the egalitarianism practiced was just a sort of poverty for all. And then the priority task became growth, and given their experience of Maoism and the general historical record and state of economic science, they thought this required market reforms and the creation of a mixed economy where inequality was only moderately controlled. The experience of the USSR breakup also seemingly cautioned against democratic reforms pursued before the economic issues are resolved.

Roughly speaking, the 'mechanical Marxism' puts an emphasis on growth, and they think an authoritarian mixed economy (of the sort that rapidly developed Korea and Japan) is the fastest way to grow, and then (at least on paper) open up future possibilities.

In this theory at some point when the economy is sufficiently developed, greater emphasis should be placed on 'social development' and egalitarianism. So far there has been some modest move in this direction, for example the goal of inequality reduction (and environmental restoration) have been given greater priority.