thanks karl... these 2 posts taken together are very informative... here is an important quotation from part 2 -
"History proves that under capitalism, industrialism must take the road of financialism, especially for hegemonic countries. The British Empire, the Netherlands before the rise of Britain, and the hegemony of the United States today have not escaped this historical "law". In fact, under the dominance of US hegemony, all developed countries are going through the process of financialization of the economy.
The structural characteristics of China's basic socialist system conducive to industrial development are reflected in many aspects, such as the leadership of the Communist Party, public ownership of land and natural resources, and so on, but today I will only talk about one aspect: the basic socialist system enables the state to control the channel of financial inflow into the real economy and to coordinate the relationship between finance and industry. Thus, as long as the policy is not wrong, China can avoid financialization of the economy."
and further down - "500 years of world history proves that an industrial power never loses when it comes to the challenge of a financial power, whether that financial power is a world hegemon at the time or not."
this fellows insights are on the money as i see it... thanks again for sharing all this!
You can see why psychohistorian yammers on and on about the fundamental correctness of finance being a public monopoly/utility. Adding land to the mix would really be primo but would vary from nation to nation. Subsoil of course would all belong to the people. I tried posting the links to both at MoA but typepad refused to allow them.
well, i have always agreed with psychohistorian on this topic, we are all in agreement here! i am sorry it didn't go thru to MOA - people definitely need to read these last 2 articles you've shared.. thanks karl...
But b @ MoA is not a Marxist but perhaps of the broad left and yes, an anti-imperialist and that's not to say that he hasn't useful opinions about events to offer us, just that they're limited. Is MoA really censoring you Karlof? He normally only censors the rabid ones. Have you tried emailing him?
It’s the software, Typepad, and this isn’t the first time I’ve had issues. This morning my announcement posting was there, so I thanked b when I posted my next notice. I see we have the return of a persistent flea now saying it’s a child, which at least is admitting its intellectual capacity.
Naomi Klein recently noted that what the broad coalition of Trump's supporters have in common is that they have given up on humanity and the planet itself.
Something similar might be said of the liberals, who dominate our academy. economy and government, for their belief in the superiority of 'the market' is founded on their view that reason, in the form of planning, under social control cannot work. They too have given up on humanity in the sense that they do not trust in its ability to govern itself and plot its future course.
This is, of course, a core belief in an ideology that insists that "socialism has never worked and always leads to tyranny and the oppression of individuals.
It is interesting and totally believable that the Chinese economy and system faced its greatest crisis in the form of the bad advice brought back to the country by former students in the United States, promoting 'liberal' 'market' ideas and calling for the relaxation of the very social controls that underpin planning in industry and commerce.
Sadly India, now one of the world's most unequal societies and actually more unequal than it was under British imperialism, traded in its social democratic principles for the jungle economics that it now, having followed advice from US educated experts such as Congress' Manmohan Singh.
The practical examples of industrial development and reasoning is way beyond the capacity/scope of western economists, I suppose in part due to hands on experience (living the dream) and the opportunity to think freely unencumbered by ideological protocol. Who among us could have read such a lengthy article from Paul Krugman, and yet, he picked up a Nobel?
Only one comment puzzled me when Feng discussed 'strategic assets' and their inability to be replicated, equating the $$$$$$$$ hegemony and Russian oil & gas. Maybe I got tired or weary by then and took this out of context..
After reading Part One I took a light relief break and clicked on Garland Nixon's latest podcast with a guest I haven't seen or heard of before., an elderly gent, American I think, living in Taiwan. His opening gambit was that he thought Pete Hegseth's recent China war rhetoric was pretty effective due to his constant emphasis/reference to 'communism' when mentioning China. His reasoning, that 10 Asian countries get the jitters even at the mention of communism. I exited immediately after this.
I'll end with a classic from the renowned American economist and piss-taker Alan Greenspan, ex Federal Reserve Chairman who stated that despite having 200 Mathematicians & Economists at his disposal, like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein with a twinkle in his eye and matching smirk. he never saw the Subprime coming.
Productive activity generates goods to use. Goods may be material [stuff, things], social [services for others], order [usable, reusable organisation], or propositions, instructions [language representations, mental inventions, impressions of phenomena]. Overproduction of any goods implies insufficient current uses for them. So where the situation indicates that overproduction is occurring or is about to occur, expand uses for the produced goods.
Annual harvests overproduce for current use. So store and release delays use until needed. Overproduced grain can be used to make biofuels, or given to others, so production levels are homeostatically balanced.
If production is measured on one dimension - amount - the only comparison on the basis of which a value judgment can be made is between what is and what was or might be. More or less is inherently good or bad - an arbitrary result.
If production is measured on more than one dimension - amount and usage - [other possible dimensions: ease or difficulty of production; degree and spread of harms caused by production; damage or enhancement to human producers, ...] then the value of a particular productivity can be evaluated according to empirically knowable consequences. And the effects of producing can be changed on other dimensions, resetting the equations of productivity, resulting in "demand elasticity". and "technological progress or breakthroughs in one field will lead to technological progress in other fields, and an increase in demand in one field will lead to an increase in demand in other fields."
China's "production restriction system'" has been one-dimensionally arbitrary, so so ignores the knock-on effects on other vital dimensions of its socio-economic systems.
Lu Feng's 'fable' shows the consequences of America's reduction of productivity on its other dimensions of collaborative endeavour - progressive disaster, or socio-economic self-harm.
If growth of gross domestic product in a particular economy is measured in currency, it can't have a state, or resting value, as currency doesn't exist materially, just literally 'runs through' all commercial exchanges at the same time, in a distributed manner. Monetary value doesn't imprint on the goods exchanged, it leaves them unmarked by the exchange. Currency operationally relates two goods - one in reality now, and the other indeterminate in the future. Real exchange relates two goods now, the basis for 'win-win' commerce. The 'market' is the metaphorical dynamic link between production and use - commerce.
“under capitalism, industrialism must take the road of financialism". The imaginary, confabulated [currency] replaces the real [useful goods].
The only way growth can be measured is by estimating the beneficial usage of the products being generated. In a distributed system this is virtually impossible to know comprehensively. It can be deduced from the adequacy of the livings of all of its people. On this metric, China has good growth. America, Britain, and the rest of the neoliberal empire have bad or austere [parched] growth, or commercial-cultural shrinkage, decline. "Only when all the working population is useful, can China take the road of "common prosperity".
Growth in useful productivity is multidimensional, not measurable on the one non-existent dimension of 'currency', which is what Li Feng is saying.
I'd be interested to know what Michael Hudson makes of Li Feng's thinking, or what Li Feng makes of Hudson's books.
Dr. Hudson has yet to provide any feedback on the Lu Feng articles, but he’s been rather busy with his own works. He subscribes, so I know he reads what I produce. He applauded several of Warwick Powell’s essays I sent to him and endorsed Yanis’s letter to the Chinese. Some nut at MoA tried to say Lu Feng’s no expert.
Fascinating reading, I only wish the translation had been better, many of the phrases indicate that they make sense to the Chinese but not to Western readers. So do these two essays dispel the endless arguments about whether Chinese socialism really is socialism? I hope the Western Marxists read this, it certainly makes sense to me, although I'd like to know where it's all headed.
thanks karl... these 2 posts taken together are very informative... here is an important quotation from part 2 -
"History proves that under capitalism, industrialism must take the road of financialism, especially for hegemonic countries. The British Empire, the Netherlands before the rise of Britain, and the hegemony of the United States today have not escaped this historical "law". In fact, under the dominance of US hegemony, all developed countries are going through the process of financialization of the economy.
The structural characteristics of China's basic socialist system conducive to industrial development are reflected in many aspects, such as the leadership of the Communist Party, public ownership of land and natural resources, and so on, but today I will only talk about one aspect: the basic socialist system enables the state to control the channel of financial inflow into the real economy and to coordinate the relationship between finance and industry. Thus, as long as the policy is not wrong, China can avoid financialization of the economy."
and further down - "500 years of world history proves that an industrial power never loses when it comes to the challenge of a financial power, whether that financial power is a world hegemon at the time or not."
this fellows insights are on the money as i see it... thanks again for sharing all this!
You can see why psychohistorian yammers on and on about the fundamental correctness of finance being a public monopoly/utility. Adding land to the mix would really be primo but would vary from nation to nation. Subsoil of course would all belong to the people. I tried posting the links to both at MoA but typepad refused to allow them.
well, i have always agreed with psychohistorian on this topic, we are all in agreement here! i am sorry it didn't go thru to MOA - people definitely need to read these last 2 articles you've shared.. thanks karl...
But b @ MoA is not a Marxist but perhaps of the broad left and yes, an anti-imperialist and that's not to say that he hasn't useful opinions about events to offer us, just that they're limited. Is MoA really censoring you Karlof? He normally only censors the rabid ones. Have you tried emailing him?
It’s the software, Typepad, and this isn’t the first time I’ve had issues. This morning my announcement posting was there, so I thanked b when I posted my next notice. I see we have the return of a persistent flea now saying it’s a child, which at least is admitting its intellectual capacity.
Any country, and I stress, any country, that still trusts the USSA and its asswipe politicians on both side of the aisle, needs a mental intervention.
The world needs an a**hole, and now it has the USSA.
Naomi Klein recently noted that what the broad coalition of Trump's supporters have in common is that they have given up on humanity and the planet itself.
Something similar might be said of the liberals, who dominate our academy. economy and government, for their belief in the superiority of 'the market' is founded on their view that reason, in the form of planning, under social control cannot work. They too have given up on humanity in the sense that they do not trust in its ability to govern itself and plot its future course.
This is, of course, a core belief in an ideology that insists that "socialism has never worked and always leads to tyranny and the oppression of individuals.
It is interesting and totally believable that the Chinese economy and system faced its greatest crisis in the form of the bad advice brought back to the country by former students in the United States, promoting 'liberal' 'market' ideas and calling for the relaxation of the very social controls that underpin planning in industry and commerce.
Sadly India, now one of the world's most unequal societies and actually more unequal than it was under British imperialism, traded in its social democratic principles for the jungle economics that it now, having followed advice from US educated experts such as Congress' Manmohan Singh.
Yes, one can say India caught the USA Flu. There’s a rather short op/ed that was published in Russian then translated and edited by RT, here in the original, https://www.gazeta.ru/comments/column/articles/21123656.shtml and here on RT, https://www.rt.com/news/618454-biden-years-america-gerontocracy/ While being wrong on some points its right on others.
Good, no great stuff.
The practical examples of industrial development and reasoning is way beyond the capacity/scope of western economists, I suppose in part due to hands on experience (living the dream) and the opportunity to think freely unencumbered by ideological protocol. Who among us could have read such a lengthy article from Paul Krugman, and yet, he picked up a Nobel?
Only one comment puzzled me when Feng discussed 'strategic assets' and their inability to be replicated, equating the $$$$$$$$ hegemony and Russian oil & gas. Maybe I got tired or weary by then and took this out of context..
After reading Part One I took a light relief break and clicked on Garland Nixon's latest podcast with a guest I haven't seen or heard of before., an elderly gent, American I think, living in Taiwan. His opening gambit was that he thought Pete Hegseth's recent China war rhetoric was pretty effective due to his constant emphasis/reference to 'communism' when mentioning China. His reasoning, that 10 Asian countries get the jitters even at the mention of communism. I exited immediately after this.
I'll end with a classic from the renowned American economist and piss-taker Alan Greenspan, ex Federal Reserve Chairman who stated that despite having 200 Mathematicians & Economists at his disposal, like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein with a twinkle in his eye and matching smirk. he never saw the Subprime coming.
Productive activity generates goods to use. Goods may be material [stuff, things], social [services for others], order [usable, reusable organisation], or propositions, instructions [language representations, mental inventions, impressions of phenomena]. Overproduction of any goods implies insufficient current uses for them. So where the situation indicates that overproduction is occurring or is about to occur, expand uses for the produced goods.
Annual harvests overproduce for current use. So store and release delays use until needed. Overproduced grain can be used to make biofuels, or given to others, so production levels are homeostatically balanced.
If production is measured on one dimension - amount - the only comparison on the basis of which a value judgment can be made is between what is and what was or might be. More or less is inherently good or bad - an arbitrary result.
If production is measured on more than one dimension - amount and usage - [other possible dimensions: ease or difficulty of production; degree and spread of harms caused by production; damage or enhancement to human producers, ...] then the value of a particular productivity can be evaluated according to empirically knowable consequences. And the effects of producing can be changed on other dimensions, resetting the equations of productivity, resulting in "demand elasticity". and "technological progress or breakthroughs in one field will lead to technological progress in other fields, and an increase in demand in one field will lead to an increase in demand in other fields."
China's "production restriction system'" has been one-dimensionally arbitrary, so so ignores the knock-on effects on other vital dimensions of its socio-economic systems.
Lu Feng's 'fable' shows the consequences of America's reduction of productivity on its other dimensions of collaborative endeavour - progressive disaster, or socio-economic self-harm.
If growth of gross domestic product in a particular economy is measured in currency, it can't have a state, or resting value, as currency doesn't exist materially, just literally 'runs through' all commercial exchanges at the same time, in a distributed manner. Monetary value doesn't imprint on the goods exchanged, it leaves them unmarked by the exchange. Currency operationally relates two goods - one in reality now, and the other indeterminate in the future. Real exchange relates two goods now, the basis for 'win-win' commerce. The 'market' is the metaphorical dynamic link between production and use - commerce.
“under capitalism, industrialism must take the road of financialism". The imaginary, confabulated [currency] replaces the real [useful goods].
The only way growth can be measured is by estimating the beneficial usage of the products being generated. In a distributed system this is virtually impossible to know comprehensively. It can be deduced from the adequacy of the livings of all of its people. On this metric, China has good growth. America, Britain, and the rest of the neoliberal empire have bad or austere [parched] growth, or commercial-cultural shrinkage, decline. "Only when all the working population is useful, can China take the road of "common prosperity".
Growth in useful productivity is multidimensional, not measurable on the one non-existent dimension of 'currency', which is what Li Feng is saying.
I'd be interested to know what Michael Hudson makes of Li Feng's thinking, or what Li Feng makes of Hudson's books.
Dr. Hudson has yet to provide any feedback on the Lu Feng articles, but he’s been rather busy with his own works. He subscribes, so I know he reads what I produce. He applauded several of Warwick Powell’s essays I sent to him and endorsed Yanis’s letter to the Chinese. Some nut at MoA tried to say Lu Feng’s no expert.
Fascinating reading, I only wish the translation had been better, many of the phrases indicate that they make sense to the Chinese but not to Western readers. So do these two essays dispel the endless arguments about whether Chinese socialism really is socialism? I hope the Western Marxists read this, it certainly makes sense to me, although I'd like to know where it's all headed.