John Ross says that 30 years ago Russia had the same sized economy as China, and he tried to tell the Russians back then to copy the Chinese model, but the Russians thought that they could be as rich as the Americans within a year if they listened to the US neoliberal economists, and some even thought they could turn the economy around within weeks. Now the majority of Russians regret what happened, including Putin.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Socialism is the Future "President Putin:Russia should have learned experience from China"｜John Ross
Socialism works for China.
John Ross says that 30 years ago Russia had the same sized economy as China, and he tried to tell the Russians back then to copy the Chinese model, but the Russians thought that they could be as rich as the Americans within a year if they listened to the US neoliberal economists, and some even thought they could turn the economy around within weeks. Now the majority of Russians regret what happened, including Putin.
John Ross says that 30 years ago Russia had the same sized economy as China, and he tried to tell the Russians back then to copy the Chinese model, but the Russians thought that they could be as rich as the Americans within a year if they listened to the US neoliberal economists, and some even thought they could turn the economy around within weeks. Now the majority of Russians regret what happened, including Putin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
If socialism was stable, it would not have been rejected time after time.
Justice is the answer, not replacing/supplementing wage slavery to the private sector with wage slavery to government.
More nonsense about a "socialist" China. The Scandinavian countries offer a better model of "socialism" for Russia or America or Canada.
Those goodies in Scandinavia came about when they had the state was heavily involved in many things, like running a lot of companies directly or indirectly, similar to the strategy in China.
They certainly do!
Yes, I've read before how close the Scandinavian model has been with the Chinese.
The Scandinavian model is known as social democracy, which doesn't require system change. The state is always involved in protecting and regulating capitalism. Otherwise it blows up. China's social safety net has a ways to go to match what Scandinavia has, or even what Canada has.
The Scandinavian model is known as social democracy, which doesn't require system change.
The deeper message of Marx is that it does. It is just gradual system change. The "laws of motion" of capitalism make the socialization of production ever more imperative and extensive, the growth of government ever more. Either that or a vicious neoliberal attack and counterrevolution to barbarism, as we have seen in the last 50 years. But that was only partial victories for the Dark Side, looks like ending, and it is very unstable.
Actually, the Swedish model had a higher proportion of the economy in the private sector than in the USA, which was always only verbally more capitalist - but with a rather more corrupt quasi-socialized sector. Not that there's anything wrong with that :-) -see James Galbraith & Colin Crouch on "privatized Keynesianism" and the like.
I'm in favor of social democracy. I won't live long enough to witness the outcome.
China demonstrated what can be done when corruption is kept under control. Russia learned this the hard way. Americans are in the midst of it. It's a lesson for everyone.
That being said, China's triumph is a triumph for business as usual. The leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is an ally of the commodity-based economic world order. The very arrangement that must be changed if we are to survive the climate crisis.
“China's triumph is a triumph for business as usual.“
Well lifting close to a billion people up from extreme poverty under such short time can’t be ignored.
And India and Africa may be next in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.
I don't believe this is sustainable, not without addressing per capita energy consumption. Consumerism and commodity production have to be curtailed; the profit motive replaced with other motives; and our way of life has to change. Our purpose for living has to change.
Couldn't agree more. I don't know if people are capable of it, but consumption to spirituality.
“I don't believe this is sustainable, not without addressing per capita energy consumption. “
That may be so but it definitely isn’t sustainable to have billions of people in extreme poverty either.
Post a Comment