Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bob marsden's avatar

Thanks for making available this interesting perspective on Chinese social, political, and economic recent history.

For a while I’ve had the thought that Putin is espousing and performing ‘socialism with Russian characteristics’, so it is good to see you articulating it.

I take socialism (and the rhetorically disqualified term ‘communism’) to indicate that the paramount purpose, continuous project, of national, regional, and local governance is to ensure that all the people entrusted to it are provided with all they need to live well - the wherewithal to prosper. [IndoEuropean roots: spəros thriving; prō forwards]

Sovereign Mutualism: collaborate, work together, with all people, internally and externally.

Prime social injunction: ‘help each other out, don’t do each other down’.

Only compete in fair games of pretend whose rules and practices deliberately preclude harm.

Mutualist commissioning is when governance suggests a project of collaborative endeavour and provides the wherewithal to accomplish its purpose. Coercive commissioning is antimutual.

A market economy is a social institution which provides feedback and feedforward between producers and users. It matches what is required to what is available across time. What is required commissions its fulfilment; what is available commissions its delivery. Capitalist ownership is not necessary for a market of exchanges of goods to work effectively. The ‘Gum’ effect exemplifies a market’s ‘barbaric’ malfunctioning.

Capitalist productive enterprises are owned by aliens to them, not their participants and collective communal commissioners. So the alien directive is to extract and alienate currency from the enterprise and avoid responsibility for the harms this inevitably causes. They are parasitic on the efforts of ’their’ workers to the detriment of both participants and their social milieu. A community that hosts a productive enterprise benefits from it on behalf of whoever within it makes use of its products.

It is and has been possible for an entrepreneur to initiate and run an enterprise on the principle of currency homeostasis for the benefit of its community, ‘looking after’ its workers and providing for their health and safety while avoiding despoiling its ecological and social environment. In England, particularly within the Quaker community, Cadbury, Boots, Reckitts for example were run as public services with their owners extracting enough to live on. They all now have alien owners who have resiled from their communal responsibilities.

So as Deng Xiaoping avers “public ownership should occupy the main body”. Collectively owned public services are the means of providing for the needs of the people.

Incidentally, I have difficulty finding out what the “two worries” are. They are referred to but not specified.

Expand full comment
James A Foleyи's avatar

A very interesting and informative discussion - thank you, Karl as always. The participants were very diplomatic, especially with regard to Gorbachev. A good time to remember, perhaps Deng Xiaoping's reported remarks after he had met Gorbachev for the first time: "Here's a man who sounds very intelligent, but who is in fact very stupid."

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts