Lol, not everything is a logical fallacy...
If I had made the original assertion and then moved my position on the matter... That's moving the goal post.
When someone disagrees with the underlying premise of your assertion, it's just a rebuttal.
Why do you think they don't?
Because it's a complicated subject that is limited by both language and constraints upon our scientific understanding about animals without spines.
I think it's accurate to say that most animals feel pain, but how we scientifically describe pain precludes a lot of animals.
Now, the scientific community could be wrong and more animals than we think could be experiencing stimuli akin to pain through a method of action we don't understand. However, if we accept that and lessen the definitional qualifiers of pain, then a lot of plants are going to be joining the ethical debate as well.
so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?
I think if he "trained" the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.
In 2023, Sarkozy's attempt to appeal the decision was denied and he has been banned from holding public office for three years and but will still have the option of serving his sentence from home with an electronic bracelet.[182]
A slap on the wrist ten years after you've retired isn't going to persuade anyone not to do crime for a bunch of money and power.
My dude, nothing in that blog supports your claim.
First of all, it's talking about the metallurgy of the 16th century and after, which is after Japan had imported blast furnaces. Secondly, it ignores the amount of labour needed to actually produce refined steel from iron sands, which ultimately dictates the quality of the finished product.
This isnt a debatable topic, any steel made from iron sands before modern electromagnetic sorting contains a large amount of impurities when compared to steel made from rock ore.
Even during WW2 the Japanese had a hard time producing high quality steel even with the use of blast furnaces, because the iron sands contains a large amount of titanium.
This blog which falls over itself trying to engage in revisionist history, can only claim that the quality was "perfectly fine"....not good.
You are conflating the elemental molecule of iron with the finished product of an alloy of carbonized iron aka as steel.
Yes, there isn't a molecular difference between the iron found in sand vs the iron found in rock ore. However, the medium in which you harvest your iron and how you're able to heat that iron, dictates the quality not your final product.
Lol, my dude. No one is claiming that modern japanese steel is of poor quality.
Im speaking of the time period contemporary with the accusation. You know, how arguments typically work......
Do you think the guns Japanese Samurai used were made from steel refined from sand?
Just pointing out this one because it's funny. Yes, a lot of the early firearms made in Japan were still made from iron sand (Satetsu). Which was the main source of iron in Japan until the 16th century.
The framing of this question is important. Are we evaluating effectiveness? Loyalty to Marxism itself? Simply looking for points of divergence? I'll assume you are more interested in the benefits of SOEs, and whether or not they are loyal to the Marxist idea of Socialism, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I would say it's important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it's supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.
The fact that SOEs are profit driven does not mean that they are guided by Bourgeois interests.
I don't know if it means they're automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it's an SOE it's immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.
Assuming the CPC is in fact a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (and we must do so for this argument to not spiral into endless discussions again, we can absolutely revisit this as its own argument if you wish), then this is an example of a Proletarian managed market economy, which is different from Social Democracy where the State acts in the interest of the Bourgeoisie.
Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn't a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.
You are correctly identifying that there is a contradiction at play. The benefits of the market economy are in rapidly developing the productive forces and educating the working masses in how to manage and run production. This is where Historical Materialism comes in, the CPC can't beam information into everyone's brains and mind control them. Instead, market forces result in syndicates and monopolization of Capital, which is dominated and manipulated by the CPC. As the markets develop themselves, they increasingly make themselves easier to directly manage and operate from above. Imagine a million competing factories in earlier Capitalism, and compare it to the era of monopoly Capitalism where a dozen companies practice their own planning, then imagine there is an entity pulling the strings, letting them grow, then seizing them in proportion to their growth.
I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it's still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn't mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.
If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.
I'm not an anarchist or anything and don't agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you're interested Murray Bookchin's analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.
I try to treat those who treat me with respect with respect in kind.
An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.
According to whom?
The reason why Japanese iron is inferior is because of the source of the iron itself, they utilized iron sand instead of rock ore. Rock ore can be made up to 90% ferrous material while the iron sand contains as little as 2%.
This means when you smelt your source material into blooms of iron and slag, the blooms made from sand iron were much smaller. Instead of utilizing a single bloom to make a sword, the Japanese had to work several blooms together. Which is much more labour intensive, and can lead to a lot of imperfections in the final product.
This is why katanas were made out of so little material, and had to be handled with care. They were much more fragile pieces than similar swords made in Korea and China at the time.
Plus, the Japanese developed their iron working much later than their mainland contemporaries, as they never independently invented furnace technology. The technology for furnaces was imported, most likely from the Korean peninsula.
Fair enough, however I would like to point out that my responses have been direct responses prompted by questions and statements originated by you and the person you were originally responding to.
But I agree that we may benefit from narrowing our topic to a more specific field of discussion. I would be interested in knowing how you feel a profit driven SOE is inherently different from a private company.
In my opinion so long as the company's structural hierarchy and it's inherent purpose remains the same or similar, there's not really going to be a meaningful difference in how the workers are treated. For example, don't really see how the workers have seized any more of the means of production than a worker for a company that offers stock options.
There's still just as much opportunity and motivation for exploiting workers. There's still an inherent profit motive that spurs the worst aspects of capitalism. Even if we propose that there could be less destructive competition due to the states monopoly of production, the fact that these SOE are publicly traded still means there's a competition of capital acquisition. These SOE still have to make sure they invest a significant amount of their excess production value back into the organization to ensure their stock increases in value next year.
Thank you for your time, it's pleasant knowing you can still get into the nitty and gritty with someone you don't 100% see eye to eye with, and not have it break down to name calling. Cheers.
Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.
So you're saying state ownership is a response to increased disparity, yet the increase of state ownership hasn't been effective at controlling the disparity.
Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.
An ad hominem? I see this response a lot about anything having to do with the uyghur population. Even if some of the information referenced was gathered by a fascist, that doesn't mean the information itself is flawed.
The haber process was invented by a literal Nazi and we still utilize it to produce nitrogen. Whatever his motivations, the information he gathered has all been verified by reputable journalists to originate from internal part communications or publicly released information.
Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.
You don't speak for all Marxist, and Marxist don't get to redefine terminology to exclude themselves from valid criticism. Even if everyone accepted this definition of imperialism..... What do you call it when you violently expand your territorial holdings with ethno national intent?
What do we call it when they transfer entire nationalities to places like Kazakhstan to extract the wealth to support the Slavic population? It's a complete cop out to think that redefining a term to muddy the waters is meaningful despite the end results being tragically similar.
Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances.
Source?
The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn't at "breakneck speeds," you're going to have to describe what that entails.
The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France's 32%.
Similarly, the wealth share of the top 10% of the population reached 67%, close to the U.S.’s 72% and higher than France’s 50%.
Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng's statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.
Then why is wealth disparity still growing? If SOE have nationalized the majority of production, how is the disparity continue to grow?
Well, it's because SOE are still profit driven...... A nationalized business that still has profit motive isnt inherently different from private organization, especially considering that most of these SOE still have a significant amount of shares being publicly traded.
How is creating wealth for the state and share holders different from creating wealth for a capitalist and share holders for a workers perspective. There still an inherent motivation to maximize profits at the expense of their own workers.
Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there's even workplace democracy. Simply saying "it seems as though xyz" and gesturing isn't an argument.
Simply stating there are "Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power," isn't an argument. Especially considering there's widely available reports of workplaces ignoring these guilines without retort. On top of that nearly a third of their workforce lacks the protections outlines by the state as they are migrant workers who dont work full time for a single employer.
As far as real estate purchasing power...... I think we both know the extent of their issues within the real estate market.
I don't really have any criticisms about the majority of their large infrastructure projects, that's an area I think theyre ahead of the rest of the world, however id hardly say that's a byproduct of "workers owning the means of production". I'd say that's more a byproduct of a more centralized government .
Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management "class?"
Yes, real wages are rising. But is that a product of industrialization or socialism? Every nation that industrializes sees a rise in wages, that's not inherent to workers seizing the means of production. What's strange is that real wages and disparity are rising in eerily similar patterns as western nations.
what on Earth is a management "class?"
Are you being purposely obtuse, or just can't make the leap in deduction? What do you call a class of people whos job is to represent capitalist in the actual workplace? People whom don't participate in ownership, but work on behalf of the owners to maximize their profits at the behest of the capitalist?
Just because people don't utilize the same internalized diction accepted in your particular political ideology, doesn't mean the information isn't valid. That's just asking for discourse based purely on semantic reasoning.
statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.
Right, but you you said it in reference to class reductionism.... Which doesn't really make sense as there wasn't an established stratified class consciousness at the time.
I honestly don't have a problem with Communism, I think Marx was brilliant and dialectical materialism is probably one of the most important ideas of the millennium. Im just not as optimistic about the contemporary implementations of it, and I think it's important to point out the internal contradictions of past and current states for future attempts.
I constantly see people talking about the importance of addressing internal contradictions, however when anyone points out something like rising disparity or soe having profit motive, I tend to just get knee jerk reactions that are usually based in logical fallacy.
I think you and most Marxist who reflexively defend the contemporary CCP from valid criticism would benefit from a different perspective from someone once very engaged in the party. This isn't a liberal perspective but someone who is upset at the liberalization of the modern CCP.
From Victory To Defeat: China's Socialist Road and Capitalist Reversal
by Pao-yu Ching
I think the first sentence is probably enough to make anyone not afflicted with a eurocentric brain want to palm some face.
I think excusing it as a "not serious" statement is dangerous, as a lot of people even on Lemmy won't second guess it.
The belief that the west is the origin of all science and culture is surprisingly pervasive, especially in the tech industry.
My point was that his assertion that Marx didn't judge Engles for being a capitalist isn't really meaningful as they didn't ideologically conflict at the time. There wasn't an ideological divide between a capitalist and workers, as workers hadn't developed a stratified class consciousness.
The PRC has been increasing state ownership over time and is restructuring the economy. It can't just push a button and wipe the entire private sector away overnight. I would like to see sources of forced labor though.
I would like to see sources claiming state ownership has meaningfully increased over time, as the increased disparity in wealth seems counter intuitive to that claim.
Source for forced labor in China.
I'd like clarification on what you mean by Imperialist tactics and wanting every country to be Russia, that stands directly in contrast to the stated ideology of the USSR and appears to be fairly ahistorical.
Ahh, so examine internal contradictions......but don't actually call them contradictions.
It depends on what era and region you are talking about. Stalin was a supporter of communism in one country, as opposed to Mao who urged each country to adopt communism with characteristics unique to each culture.
A large part of the split between Trotsky and Stalin occured over how to handle the CCP during the Japanese invasion. Stalin wanted to make a deal with the KMT and later turn on them, Trotsky wanted to aid the budding CCP in their fight against imperialism.
When talking about the spread in eastern Europe, the Soviets implemented programs to replace languages and culture.
In Korea the Soviets disappeared the socialist leader of Korea who was paramount in fighting off the Japanese, because he wanted control of the country to be transferred back to Koreans and for unification to begin ASAP. He was replaced by the Kim family, who they had trained in Russia.
Or we could just take a look at how the Soviets treated the non Slavic people withing the USSR. Whom are overwhelmingly more impoverished and have historically had the wealth of their land extracted to support the Slavic population. As well as being drafted for wars at a tremendously higher rate than their Slavic counterparts.
Do you have some numbers we can follow with respect to the claims of Imperialism?
What numbers do you speak of that magically determine how imperialist a nation is?
This is false, more of production is owned by the state now than it was previously. There is steady progress towards more collective ownership, without disentangling from the global market.
Source?
said disparity is increasing, yes. However, the state has full ownership of 17 of the 20 largest companies, and 70% of the largest 200. Banking, railways, mining, energy, and more are near totally controlled by the CPC.
Soo if the state "owns" the majority of the businesses, yet wealth disparity is growing at breakneck speeds, and the workers still don't have the same protections as some place as dystopic as America...... What does that say? Something isn't adding up here.
Either the government is purposely creating a bourgeois class on purpose.... Or the meaning of ownership is inherently different than what you are implying.
There is a bourgeois class, yes, and this will need to be confronted, but they do not hold more power than the CPC.
You could make the same argument about American bourgeois.
It can't be a leap, the next mode of production emerges from the previous. We see this with the CPC gradually increasing ownership of various sectors.
And what has that ownership meant for the people who "own the means of production"? What influence does the average worker in China have that surpasses the level of influence of a worker in Detroit? It seems that ownership just enriches the bourgeois with ties to the government now.
Sure, that's the direct lesson the USSR taught the CPC with its collapse. The world depends on China for production and thus can't openly attack it.
Which is just another barrier lifted that you say precludes them from actually transitioning to a socialized economy.
It has coupled with an increase in worker ownership, like I said the CPC has been steadily increasing state ownership, especially in the last decade or so.
Is that worker really worker ownership....? One would think that you may increase your own working conditions or pay if you collectively owned the factory you worked at.
How exactly do the workers own the productivity when theres still a management class that capitalizes on the work you produce at the factory you "own"?
Engels was a literal Capitalist. Ideologically he was a Communist, yes, but Engels was a literal factory owner and businessman.
Right...... But my point was there's not an ideological difference between Marx and Engles as you implied in your statement.
when they tried to jump to Communism under Mao and the later Gang of Four, they ran into massive issues because the Means of Production weren't developed enough.
That's legitimate reasoning for a pre industrialized china, much less so when modern China is basically the production capital of the world.
I don't think there is a legitimate excuse for the modern wealth disparity, the large transient work force, or the use of forced labor currently happening in China.
Like it or not, the USSR collapsed due to trying to stay isolated from the West, which legitimately led to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods.
The USSR didn't collapse because they were isolated from the West, leading to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They collapsed because they still utilized empirialist tactics to expand their holdings.
Their failed push into Afghanistan was the final blow, but the Soviet Union had already been spending way too much of their national budget on the military, siphoning away from the robust social safety networks they built in the 60's.
Russia didn't want communism in every country, they wanted every country to be Russia, and thus communist. This of course didn't track well with the East or the West, leading to the schisms between the USSR and the communist East.
It maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over Capital,
But does it? Marx described a dictatorship of the proletariat as workers mandating the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.
Now one would assume that if workers controlled the means of production, then they would have more direct control of their working conditions and pay than somewhere like the United States. We would also hope to see a steady progress towards collective ownership, however in recent history we have seen more and more production being privatized, not nationalized.
The bourgeoisie exists, but has been kept no larger than can be drowned in a bathtub, in terms of power relation to the CPC, so to speak.
I'm sorry, but cracking down a few billionaires that step out of the party line is not the same as keeping some small enough to "drown in a bathtub". 1% of the country owns a third of the wealth of their nation, and as you say the disparity is not shrinking.
When analyzing something, it isn't sufficient to take a present-day snapshot, you must consider its history, its relations to other entities, its contradictions, and its trajectory.
Yes, and now let's look at modern China under the lens of dialectical materialism. We've gone through some of the history already, and can both agree that the transition to collective ownership requires a certain level of productivity to achieve.
What is that amount of productivity required, and if modern China isn't productive enough to make that particular leap....who the hell can?
As far as relationships go, China is one of the most globalized nations in the world. When compared to the USSR, who actually achieved a modest level of collective ownership....modern China is one of the most popular nations in the world.
Last but not least, contradictions and trajectory. Which I'm grouping together, as their current trajectory seems to contradict the entire purpose of a communist government in the first place. Industrialization has improved the quality of life in the country, but if that isn't coupled with an increase in a workers control of the means of that production, how is that different than a industrialization in a capitalist nation?
Engels was a Capitalist, was Marx hypocritical for keeping Engels as his closest friend and ally? No. Class reductionism is dogmatic, we must analyze correctly.
Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who's disciples were Jews.
You can't be a lone socialist, and people tend to wildly extrapolate on what Marx would have thought of modern economics.
Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic
You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were "italic". Moving the goal post.
in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time.
Again, my rebuttal was that societies justify their actions within their own cultural framework. Your claim was that Rome was the only empire who were commiting to just wars.
Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment
Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time.... And you've just been dramatically pedantic with all of your claims. Great....
Please point out where I said the Han didn't have a strong conception of just war.
"How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?"
"Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time"
"Here's one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,"
If you weren't trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of "all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework"? Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?
You're just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.
I've spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you're the stupidest this month, easy.
Lol, so spicy..... Maybe try going outaide and touching some grass?
And now you're demonstrating an utter inability to differentiate between the actions of soldiers and the actions of the polity.
Lol, by that logic America wasn't responsible for the My Lai massacre.... If soldiers keep doing it and aren't dissuaded or stopped, then it's an implicit policy.
but that they saw less need to create elaborate justifications for participating in what was a common behavior of society at the time. largely the same way - largely sans justification
Ahh, so now we're creeping away from the claim "very Roman origin of Just War"?
Me: "Romans had a concept of just war, and placed a relatively high value on that concept for their time and in comparison to their contemporaries."
Lol, "How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?" This you?
So now that we've confirmed that Romans weren't unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies....?
some long fucking diatribe trying to link the sacking of a city with the idea that the Romans didn't have an idea of just war, despite the fact that it is not relevant either as a data point or as an assertion of standing policy
Lol, man that single example has you fuming! It was just an example I provided because of your flabbergasted response of "what".
I see you're not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.
But hey, being a little drama queen is certainly a way to get your point across, not a good way. But you do you.
Do you think the civil wars and revolts you linked to occurred... without justification?
The first example I gave is a scenario where a city was raised without justification. There are plenty of examples on the list I gave you of soldiers destroying cities because they were previously occupied by a rival general. The justification for the civil war isnt the justification used to attack a city who's crime was only being occupied by an armed force
Here's one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War
The etymology of a phrase isn't the same as originating the very idea of justifying a war. In the chapter about the ancient world the first sentence runs counter to your summary. It states that the iliad was the first western writing to pose the conflict based on contingency instead of nature.
Here's one covering the importance of justifications for war in Roman culture and its origins](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43936674?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents)
Again, this is explaining the origins of what a just war is to the Romans, it's not saying that justifying wars was unique to or invented by the Romans.
None of your Citations claim that Romans were the only people justifying their conquest. Nor do they make any arguments claiming that the Romans invented the concept of justifying conflicts.
The problem with making giant sweeping claims is that it only takes one Example to counter them.
But, you know, fuck all those, they're reliant on the writing of elites and ethnic authors. What the fuck do they know?
Lol, no they're pretty decent papers, they just don't make the claims you assume they do.
I think you're conflating the codified concept of the Roman "just war" with the concept of justifying wars in general.
Which is kinda hilarious, because Rome had a far eastern counterpart that was active during the same periods and had very similar problems with "barbaric" neighbors. There are plenty of examples of the Han Empire justifying their own wars for nearly the same exact reasons. I just think you have a extremely eurocentric view of history.
do you think the First Gulf War wasn't waged on ideological grounds...?
You're considering intervening in an invasion of oil rich Kuwait a war fought on ideological grounds?
Do I have to outline why stealing idols is different from religiously justified wars, or is naked theft a justification in your mind?
My dude, the gods of mesopotamia were thought to be literally represented by their idol. In their belief, stealing an idol was the same thing as stealing their god.
This you?
Yes, I'm still rebutting your wild claims...
Me: "Give me your criteria for valid sources and I'll gladly provide them."
Lol, you provided a source to begin with, you just claim to have sources that agree with your argument. How about a paper over the topic of your claim?
Wow, yes, clearly I am the one being unreasonable. Excuse me while I go fetch a dozen quotes so you can say something brilliant like "Well, those were the ELITES, of COURSE they would say that" or "Well, that's a ROMAN source, of COURSE they would say that" or "It's just one/two/ten/twenty quotes, you can't just extrapolate from that!" You know, things you've already fucking said. Things I've literally quoted you fucking saying.
How performative, very dramatic. I'm not asking for dozens of quotes, I asked for one. Your interpretation of a few primary sources aren't enough to draw sweeping conclusions. How about any modern historian covering the topic?
Primary sources of ancient authors are important, but they require a surrounding body of contextual evidence to support any theory based on them. That's why historians work with people like archeologists and anthropologists to explain interpretation of historical writings.
Salty is when I outline why the incident doesn't say what you think it does and you have no actual response to that. Okay. Fantastic.
Salty and delusional....what a catch.
War without cause is when there's a revolt or civil war, and the more revolt or civil war there is, the less justification is used for it"?
Lol, I we were talking about justifications, not "war without a cause".
Dictatorship is when you say something that contradicts my assertion" - A Very Brilliant Commenter, apparently
Nope, just when people declare they can determine if cultures are similar or not based on a whim.