Discussion Why do communist states become strictly authoritarian so quickly?

[Pessimist]

I'm not even talking about the historical context like the totalitarian regime of Stalin, but about curret communist states. Every single one of them maintains an authoritarian regime. At this point I think the communists claim to be "democrats" in the same way that the Nazis claim to be "socialists".

 

[smalleiers]

Because to enforce communism, the state has to be in control. Anarchistic communism is a theory that never worked in practice. The state needs to be in control of all aspects for a regime to function. States like Eritrea for example conscript everyone and uses their "soldiers" as a mechanism for economical growth. The conscripts build infrastructure, practice medically and fill all sorts of jobs on a conscripts salary. If you have no real trading partners or industrial exports you are pretty much forced to use a command economy. The DPRK and PRC are only people's Republics in name. No democracy going on if there's only one party you can vote for. The PRC is much more structured like a meritocracy than a democracy with small regional leaders vying for power in the administrative apparatus.
And it's the same for most "communist" States that still exist to this day. It's just a cheap paint job to appear worldly.

 

[SexyIncél]

Marxist-Leninist states are easiest to understand as one big corporation. By design

Marx & Bakunin argued about this in the late 19th century. About 50 years before Leninism, Bakunin pointed out there was an emerging class of intellectuals — we nowadays call them the professional-managerial-bureaucratic class. Soviets would call it the New Class

And that this new class of intellectuals would go 1 of 2 ways:

• ride working-class struggles to "rise and take state power into their own hands. And at that point, he said, they would become the red bureaucracy who would create the worst tyranny the world had ever known, of course all in the interests of the workers."
• "realize that you're never going to get power that way. Therefore, the way to get power would be to associate yourself with what we would nowadays call state capitalism and just become a servant of its ruling class. Then you become one of the managers or an ideologue and so on for the state capitalist system. And as he put it, those people will "beat the people with the people's stick." In other words, they'll talk about democracy, but they'll really be beating people with the stick of democracy, which they'll turn into a mechanism of coercion."

"So there are some intellectuals who think you can get power by exploiting popular struggles and others who thing you're going to get power by associating yourself with the people who already have economic power."

As a minor terminology note, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Because communism's a classless, stateless society. Lenin said first there needed to be "state capitalism", which is a transition to socialism, which is a transition to communism. Or something absurd like that, citing the Marxist claim that the state will "wither away" as the bureaucrats chill out & voluntarily drop the reins of power. I imagine him in some ways like Obama, a slick hope & change politician who'll act like he's on your side

 

[Pessimist]

As a minor terminology note, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Because communism's a classless, stateless society.

And it still exists:

Communist state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sserafim]

Because to enforce communism, the state has to be in control. Anarchistic communism is a theory that never worked in practice. The state needs to be in control of all aspects for a regime to function. States like Eritrea for example conscript everyone and uses their "soldiers" as a mechanism for economical growth. The conscripts build infrastructure, practice medically and fill all sorts of jobs on a conscripts salary. If you have no real trading partners or industrial exports you are pretty much forced to use a command economy. The DPRK and PRC are only people's Republics in name. No democracy going on if there's only one party you can vote for. The PRC is much more structured like a meritocracy than a democracy with small regional leaders vying for power in the administrative apparatus.
And it's the same for most "communist" States that still exist to this day. It's just a cheap paint job to appear worldly.

China seems to be capitalist though; it's not communist in an economic sense. It is authoritarian and totalitarian though, everyone has to listen to Xi Dada and the CCP. I think that the authoritarianism got worse with the pandemic. They probably used it to crack down, tighten control and enforce stricter rules and measures. When I went to China last summer, there were cameras everywhere. It was more lax back in 2019.

 

[Pessimist]

China seems to be capitalist though

I'm not sure I agree with you...

 

[sserafim]

I'm not sure I agree with you...

View attachment 133114

In an economic sense; they have a stock market and stuff. People also own companies, like Ma Yun. If China were truly communist, how come there are Chinese billionaires?

 

[Pessimist]

In an economic sense; they have a stock market and stuff. People also own companies, like Ma Yun. If China were truly Communist, how come there are Chinese billionaires?

Because in practice these things still exist even in communist states, but to a much lesser extent.

 

[sserafim]

Because in practice these things still exist even in communist states, but to a much lesser extent.

China isn't really communist though, it's only communist on paper. No true communism has been implemented in reality

Because in practice these things still exist even in communist states, but to a much lesser extent.

Wdym

 

[smalleiers]

China seems to be capitalist though; it's not communist in an economic sense. It is authoritarian and totalitarian though, everyone has to listen to Xi Dada and the CCP. I think that the authoritarianism got worse with the pandemic. They probably used it to crack down, tighten control and enforce stricter rules and measures. When I went to China last summer, there were cameras everywhere. It was more lax back in 2019.

China is in fiscally capitalist and domestically socialist. It is the country with the fastest industrialization to date, which also is reflected in its demographical tables. The Chinese population is on average older than most Western countries with an even lower birth rate thanks to the 1 child policy.
I have a bit of a hyperfixation on China and all of its dynasties basically go through the same cycle.
Revolutionaries deposit of old Regime by mobilizing and taking Beijing -> New regime claims to be better at everything and tries their best -> huge economic and cultural growth -> Decadence seeps in, passion gets lost, funds get embezzled -> natural disaster or external factions fuck China up -> Administration cranks up the Authoritarianism -> people tolerate it for a while and develop resentment for the state -> Government raises the authority to the max -> revolutionaries deposit of old regime by mobilizing and taking bejing.

We are currently at the "Government raises authority to the max" step of the dynastic cycle
The biggest problem for china is that it reaped the enormous benefits of becoming the factory of the world, but failed to adress the huge repercussions. They can't keep their economy running if you don't have enough people to fill in the void of the golden generation that is planning on retirement in the next 10 years. And the economic growth wasn't given to the people, instead it was used to cater to the huge state controlled infrastructure industry creating whole cities from nowhere assigning contracts to companies close to CCP leadership. There also is the uyghur genocide, Taiwan and the fact that the Chinese military hasn't fought a single battle in almost 50 years. Their tech has proven to be useless and faulty as seen in the Russian-Ukraine war. It's basically a house of cards waiting to be blown away by now.

 

[Pessimist]

No true communism has been implemented in reality

What you call "true communism" can only exist in theory.

 

[sserafim]

China is in fiscally capitalist and domestically socialist. It is the country with the fastest industrialization to date, which also is reflected in its demographical tables. The Chinese population is on average older than most Western countries with an even lower birth rate thanks to the 1 child policy.
I have a bit of a hyperfixation on China and all of its dynasties basically go through the same cycle.
Revolutionaries deposit of old Regime by mobilizing and taking Beijing -> New regime claims to be better at everything and tries their best -> huge economic and cultural growth -> Decadence seeps in, passion gets lost, funds get embezzled -> natural disaster or external factions fuck China up -> Administration cranks up the Authoritarianism -> people tolerate it for a while and develop resentment for the state -> Government raises the authority to the max -> revolutionaries deposit of old regime by mobilizing and taking bejing.

We are currently at the "Government raises authority to the max" step of the dynastic cycleView attachment 133119
The biggest problem for china is that it reaped the enormous benefits of becoming the factory of the world, but failed to adress the huge repercussions. They can't keep their economy running if you don't have enough people to fill in the void of the golden generation that is planning on retirement in the next 10 years. And the economic growth wasn't given to the people, instead it was used to cater to the huge state controlled infrastructure industry creating whole cities from nowhere assigning contracts to companies close to CCP leadership. There also is the uyghur genocide, Taiwan and the fact that the Chinese military hasn't fought a single battle in almost 50 years. Their tech has proven to be useless and faulty as seen in the Russian-Ukraine war. It's basically a house of cards waiting to be blown away by now.

It's interesting that you have a hyperfixation on China. Do you know why? I'm Chinese American, but I was never interested in China, although I do speak Mandarin and engage with Chinese culture. Do you think that China's collapse is inevitable? Is it headed for financial and economic ruin? I guess China will never overtake the US then…when will the house of cards be blown away? Soon?

What you call "true communism" can only exist in theory.

Why?

 

[Pessimist]

Why?

History proves that communism completely ignores human nature, so it never works out.

 

[SexyIncél]

And it still exists:

As your link says:

As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism — they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism.

 

[smalleiers]

It's interesting that you have a hyperfixation on China. Do you know why? I'm Chinese American, but I was never interested in China, although I do speak Mandarin and engage with Chinese culture. Do you think that China's collapse is inevitable? Is it headed for financial and economic ruin? I guess China will never overtake the US then…when will the house of cards be blown away? Soon?

Why?

Oh the reason is actually pretty stupid. When I was a kid there were two gaming franchises that peaked my interest in history: Age of Empires and Dynasty Warriors / Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It began with me reading up on the Three Kingdoms period, and extended even further. I wanted to go into Sinology after finishing my bachelor in history which unfortunately never happened.

That's fascinating, I guess it's hard to connect Chinese culture to the current Chinese state as Xi and friends tried to make their version of communism the culture which is pretty dystopian in itself.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I think that most big nations are rapidly approaching a collapse, the US is potentially headed into a civil war because the political divide is unbearable right now and China is completely reliant on the states that they sell their goods to for acquisition of raw materials and energy. Quiet protest of the populace has already begun during COVID lockdowns and while I don't think it's collapse is inevitable they don't really have a way to fix their problems. China has tried to go all in on renewable energy and by practicing neo-colonialism in Africa by throwing money at States but that doesn't address the huge hole in skilled labor and a general workforce that they are heading towards. It would require insane advancements in automation technology and with AI being a joke right now their only hope is quantum computing which is still miles away of being reliable and financially efficient.
If you are familiar with the concept of apocalyptic collapse events we are headed into this kind of thing globally. One of the most famous collapses has been the Bronze age collapse, where every big player bar Egypt folded into itself. Whole civilizations went under, losing any and all heritage and written records for a few hundred years. This was in part due to natural catastrophies, heavy reliance on tin which had to be imported from India and a huge wave of "pirates" which attacked everything in the Mediterranean.
In our modern age we are so dependant on globalization, electricity and the most complicated web of interacting states ever seen. If one Institution was to fall apart, and China would be one of them the system collapsed entirely. The current weakness of global powers (US tearing itself apart, Europe being dependant on the US, Russia being a laughing Stock in Ukraine and now dependant on Chinese protection and China going through it's own times of trouble) the world has no real "sheriff's" anymore to enforce global peace. That's why you have wars breaking out, famines and revolutionary movements in many parts of the world. Saudis want to get Yemen, Ethiopia wants to create an east African superstate, Brazil had a failed coup,as did the US and even Germany had one coming. T' is a time of trouble and the world is murmuring.

Sorry if this went a bit off the deep end, I just think there are way too many factors in play in geopolitics.

 

[Pessimist]

As your link says:

They also refer to themselves as democratic while maintaining strict authoritarian regimes. I don't buy any of that communist propaganda.

 

[SexyIncél]

They also refer to themselves as democratic while maintaining strict authoritarian regimes. I don't buy any of that communist propaganda.

Yep, neither democratic nor communist; anyone believing they're either has fallen for propaganda

 

[Pessimist]

Yep, neither democratic nor communist; anyone believing they're either has fallen for propaganda

That's what communism looks like in practice.

 

[DarkRange55]

Marxist-Leninist states are easiest to understand as one big corporation. By design

Marx & Bakunin argued about this in the late 19th century. About 50 years before Leninism, Bakunin pointed out there was an emerging class of intellectuals — we nowadays call them the professional-managerial-bureaucratic class. Soviets would call it the New Class

And that this new class of intellectuals would go 1 of 2 ways:

• ride working-class struggles to "rise and take state power into their own hands. And at that point, he said, they would become the red bureaucracy who would create the worst tyranny the world had ever known, of course all in the interests of the workers."
• "realize that you're never going to get power that way. Therefore, the way to get power would be to associate yourself with what we would nowadays call state capitalism and just become a servant of its ruling class. Then you become one of the managers or an ideologue and so on for the state capitalist system. And as he put it, those people will "beat the people with the people's stick." In other words, they'll talk about democracy, but they'll really be beating people with the stick of democracy, which they'll turn into a mechanism of coercion."

"So there are some intellectuals who think you can get power by exploiting popular struggles and others who thing you're going to get power by associating yourself with the people who already have economic power."

As a minor terminology note, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Because communism's a classless, stateless society. Lenin said first there needed to be "state capitalism", which is a transition to socialism, which is a transition to communism. Or something absurd like that, citing the Marxist claim that the state will "wither away" as the bureaucrats chill out & voluntarily drop the reins of power. I imagine him in some ways like Obama, a slick hope & change politician who'll act like he's on your side

Indeed

Yep, neither democratic nor communist; anyone believing they're either has fallen for propaganda

The People's Socialist Democrats Republic of Freedom - any country with in its name is usually in practice authoritarian

As your link says:

North Korea used to have communism by name in their constitution but removed all references to the self described ideology of Juche

Communism in Korea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

As your link says:

Hmm… CCP?

Chinese Communist Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China isn't really communist though, it's only communist on paper. No true communism has been implemented in reality

Wdym

China calls themselves communist, I don't believe they are. Its not a dictatorship but maybe its trending towards that. But its a one-party state that is very authoritarian and has massive influence in the economy. They have a stock market so I'd say they're not communist.
And lots of money to move economy in certain directions like climate and EVs...and yes, they do not like dissent.

LOTS written about China and its future

China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.

Marxist-Leninist states are easiest to understand as one big corporation. By design

Marx & Bakunin argued about this in the late 19th century. About 50 years before Leninism, Bakunin pointed out there was an emerging class of intellectuals — we nowadays call them the professional-managerial-bureaucratic class. Soviets would call it the New Class

And that this new class of intellectuals would go 1 of 2 ways:

• ride working-class struggles to "rise and take state power into their own hands. And at that point, he said, they would become the red bureaucracy who would create the worst tyranny the world had ever known, of course all in the interests of the workers."
• "realize that you're never going to get power that way. Therefore, the way to get power would be to associate yourself with what we would nowadays call state capitalism and just become a servant of its ruling class. Then you become one of the managers or an ideologue and so on for the state capitalist system. And as he put it, those people will "beat the people with the people's stick." In other words, they'll talk about democracy, but they'll really be beating people with the stick of democracy, which they'll turn into a mechanism of coercion."

"So there are some intellectuals who think you can get power by exploiting popular struggles and others who thing you're going to get power by associating yourself with the people who already have economic power."

As a minor terminology note, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. Because communism's a classless, stateless society. Lenin said first there needed to be "state capitalism", which is a transition to socialism, which is a transition to communism. Or something absurd like that, citing the Marxist claim that the state will "wither away" as the bureaucrats chill out & voluntarily drop the reins of power. I imagine him in some ways like Obama, a slick hope & change politician who'll act like he's on your side

Yes, I don't think a true communist nation currently exists. But Vietnam calls itself socialist but their sole political party is "communist." While this may be in name alone. It still is self referring.

Communist Party of Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Communist Party of Cuba - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, while the country's name is socialist, the ruling party's name is communist. But in practice, they are authoritarian regimes.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-china-continues-to-call-itself-a-communist-state-52947

Then again!

While the CCP claims that China is in the primary stage of socialism, party theorists argue that the current development stage "looks a lot like capitalism".

I don't think a true communist nation currently exists

Idk read Animal Farm. They probably start off with good intentions, but given human nature and the desire for power, I'm sure that a handful of individuals use the situation to their advantage.

Kind of reminds me of 1984 how all of the ministries names are paradoxical.

I've said this many times on this site before and I will say it again, I am not a sociologist or an economist but my guess would be that communism sounds great on paper, but I don't know how it would currently work out with human nature on a large scale.

China seems to be capitalist though; it's not communist in an economic sense. It is authoritarian and totalitarian though, everyone has to listen to Xi Dada and the CCP. I think that the authoritarianism got worse with the pandemic. They probably used it to crack down, tighten control and enforce stricter rules and measures. When I went to China last summer, there were cameras everywhere. It was more lax back in 2019.

Maybe we can have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

 

[DarkRange55]

Because to enforce communism, the state has to be in control. Anarchistic communism is a theory that never worked in practice. The state needs to be in control of all aspects for a regime to function. States like Eritrea for example conscript everyone and uses their "soldiers" as a mechanism for economical growth. The conscripts build infrastructure, practice medically and fill all sorts of jobs on a conscripts salary. If you have no real trading partners or industrial exports you are pretty much forced to use a command economy. The DPRK and PRC are only people's Republics in name. No democracy going on if there's only one party you can vote for. The PRC is much more structured like a meritocracy than a democracy with small regional leaders vying for power in the administrative apparatus.
And it's the same for most "communist" States that still exist to this day. It's just a cheap paint job to appear worldly.

Eritrea - yes, but: Not necessarily. While having trading partners and industrial exports can facilitate a market economy, a country without these factors isn't automatically forced into a command economy. They may still pursue various economic strategies such as diversification, resource management, and investment in domestic industries to stimulate growth, albeit with different challenges. Additionally, they could engage in trade agreements or develop domestic consumer markets to bolster economic activity.

Comparative advantages, strategic trade and gains from trade. Back to adam smith and wealth of nations.

 

[smalleiers]

Eritrea - yes, but: Not necessarily. While having trading partners and industrial exports can facilitate a market economy, a country without these factors isn't automatically forced into a command economy. They may still pursue various economic strategies such as diversification, resource management, and investment in domestic industries to stimulate growth, albeit with different challenges. Additionally, they could engage in trade agreements or develop domestic consumer markets to bolster economic activity.

Comparative advantages, strategic trade and gains from trade. Back to adam smith and wealth of nations.

Well command economies are the Gold Standard for authoritarian Regimes that while not necessarily poor are otherwise isolated by their neighbors and/or lack to maritime bases. And that usually is the case because of either past transgressions or failure to fit the mold that capitalism requires. Cuba is considered an epitome of a socialist state and is dependant on it but they have a form of dual economy where the other half is a form of market socialism.
Laos is an example that fits your mold better, being heavily reliant on outside investments and trading, but that doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the population, more than 70% if I remember correctly, works in agriculture and have to be self sufficient to survive. This is by no means a stable market economy. And Vietnam still uses five year plans as the center of their economic strategy despite having huge economical growth. These states are barely integrated into a capitalist world market and heavily rely on help from the global economy to sustain their populace.
There barely is anything to gain from trade for poor countries nowadays since it's cheaper to just invest and produce in China.

 

[DarkRange55]

Well command economies are the Gold Standard for authoritarian Regimes that while not necessarily poor are otherwise isolated by their neighbors and/or lack to maritime bases. And that usually is the case because of either past transgressions or failure to fit the mold that capitalism requires. Cuba is considered an epitome of a socialist state and is dependant on it but they have a form of dual economy where the other half is a form of market socialism.
Laos is an example that fits your mold better, being heavily reliant on outside investments and trading, but that doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the population, more than 70% if I remember correctly, works in agriculture and have to be self sufficient to survive. This is by no means a stable market economy. And Vietnam still uses five year plans as the center of their economic strategy despite having huge economical growth. These states are barely integrated into a capitalist world market and heavily rely on help from the global economy to sustain their populace.
There barely is anything to gain from trade for poor countries nowadays since it's cheaper to just invest and produce in China.

Yes, that is typically the norm but I'm just saying that it's not a hard and fast rule that has no exceptions and is required.
Also, a lot of countries are now decoupling from China at increasing rates and moving to places like Bangladesh and Vietnam and Pakistan and others. One of my previous job was a liaison in manufacturing in Vietnam, communicating with western counterpart.

Well command economies are the Gold Standard for authoritarian Regimes that while not necessarily poor are otherwise isolated by their neighbors and/or lack to maritime bases. And that usually is the case because of either past transgressions or failure to fit the mold that capitalism requires. Cuba is considered an epitome of a socialist state and is dependant on it but they have a form of dual economy where the other half is a form of market socialism.
Laos is an example that fits your mold better, being heavily reliant on outside investments and trading, but that doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the population, more than 70% if I remember correctly, works in agriculture and have to be self sufficient to survive. This is by no means a stable market economy. And Vietnam still uses five year plans as the center of their economic strategy despite having huge economical growth. These states are barely integrated into a capitalist world market and heavily rely on help from the global economy to sustain their populace.
There barely is anything to gain from trade for poor countries nowadays since it's cheaper to just invest and produce in China.

Gambia is an interesting economy, because remittances account for 60% of their GDP.

Well command economies are the Gold Standard for authoritarian Regimes that while not necessarily poor are otherwise isolated by their neighbors and/or lack to maritime bases. And that usually is the case because of either past transgressions or failure to fit the mold that capitalism requires. Cuba is considered an epitome of a socialist state and is dependant on it but they have a form of dual economy where the other half is a form of market socialism.
Laos is an example that fits your mold better, being heavily reliant on outside investments and trading, but that doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the population, more than 70% if I remember correctly, works in agriculture and have to be self sufficient to survive. This is by no means a stable market economy. And Vietnam still uses five year plans as the center of their economic strategy despite having huge economical growth. These states are barely integrated into a capitalist world market and heavily rely on help from the global economy to sustain their populace.
There barely is anything to gain from trade for poor countries nowadays since it's cheaper to just invest and produce in China.

There are examples of authoritarian countries that do not have a command economy. For instance, Singapore is often cited as an authoritarian country with a mixed-market economy rather than a command economy. While it has strong government control, especially in social and political spheres, its economy operates largely on market principles with a significant degree of private enterprise and investment. Similarly, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have authoritarian regimes but rely heavily on market mechanisms in their economies, particularly in sectors like oil and finance.
Saudi Arabia does not have a strictly command economy. While the government exerts significant control over key sectors, particularly oil, it has increasingly moved towards economic diversification and liberalization in recent years. The country has implemented reforms to encourage private sector growth, foreign investment, and non-oil industries. However, the government still retains considerable influence over the economy through state-owned enterprises and strategic planning. Overall, Saudi Arabia's economy can be described as a mix of market mechanisms and state intervention, rather than a purely command economy.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) does not have a command economy. The UAE's economy is characterized by a mix of free-market principles and government intervention. While the government plays a significant role in guiding the economy, particularly through state-owned enterprises and strategic investments, there is also a strong presence of private enterprise and foreign investment. The UAE has actively pursued economic diversification efforts to reduce reliance on oil revenues and promote sectors such as tourism, finance, and real estate. Overall, the UAE's economy is best described as a mixed-market economy rather than a command economy.

 

[smalleiers]

Indeed

The People's Socialist Democrats Republic of Freedom - any country with in its name is usually in practice authoritarian

North Korea used to have communism by name in their constitution but removed all references to the self described ideology of Juche

Communism in Korea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hmm… CCP?

Chinese Communist Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China calls themselves communist, I don't believe they are. Its not a dictatorship but maybe its trending towards that. But its a one-party state that is very authoritarian and has massive influence in the economy. They have a stock market so I'd say they're not communist.
And lots of money to move economy in certain directions like climate and EVs...and yes, they do not like dissent.

LOTS written about China and its future

China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.

Yes, I don't think a true communist nation currently exists. But Vietnam calls itself socialist but their sole political party is "communist." While this may be in name alone. It still is self referring.

Communist Party of Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Communist Party of Cuba - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, while the country's name is socialist, the ruling party's name is communist. But in practice, they are authoritarian regimes.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-china-continues-to-call-itself-a-communist-state-52947

Then again!

While the CCP claims that China is in the primary stage of socialism, party theorists argue that the current development stage "looks a lot like capitalism".

I don't think a true communist nation currently exists

Idk read Animal Farm. They probably start off with good intentions, but given human nature and the desire for power, I'm sure that a handful of individuals use the situation to their advantage.

Kind of reminds me of 1984 how all of the ministries names are paradoxical.

I've said this many times on this site before and I will say it again, I am not a sociologist or an economist but my guess would be that communism sounds great on paper, but I don't know how it would currently work out with human nature on a large scale.

Maybe we can have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

If you are familiar with Chinese domestic politics you'd know that Xi is anything but safe in his spot right now. He tried to oust potential competition in the past few years and still has a lot of explaining to do to the regional governments who started to get wary of him once he started offing CEOs of companies with CCP ties. China is known to forge numbers for economic growth, always claiming 5% as their aim, and than regulating It down the following year. In 2022 it was 0,5% and the current estimate for 2023 is around 3% maximum. This is quite horrible for the biggest exporter of goods in the world. There is a huge difference in what the Chinese bureaucrats claim to have grown/invested and what the international bureucrats come up with. This is a textbook ploy of socialist states, the US also hugely overestimated the growth of the USSR.
China at this point is a paper tiger, and is doing to the global stage what Kongmin did to Sima Yi. While its undeniable that it is a superpower, it is that mostly on account of projecting power outward. We don't really know how much of that projection is fact. Look at Russia, which is also considered a super power but is incapable of fighting a war that they started. Chinese is the closest we have to a technocratic cleptocracy, if you ever wanted to feel Cyberpunk in real life you should live in China right now. Who knows for how long they can hold up. Their booming economy is about to crash hard in the next 20 years and anyone familiar with demographical development of nations will agree with this statement. Unless they import millions of laborers into the country, or even worse slaves they will not be able to keep up.




You are right in that there is no communist state in the world. There never has been. Every attempt at communism ended up in either a military dictatorship or a failed state. The closest thing we have are socialist democratic regimes in Europe that built a solid foundation, unions, health insurance and pension plans. I'd love to city Bruno Kreiskys 13 year chancellorship in Austria which pretty much set up everything social democracy ever aimed to do. This system has been so thorough that it took the conservatives 50 years to chip away at it with it still being intact. The original aim for communism was to take aspect of communalism and replace capitalism once it failed. And capitalism hasn't failed yet, at least officially.

Yes, that is typically the norm but I'm just saying that it's not a hard and fast rule that has no exceptions and is required.
Also, a lot of countries are now decoupling from China at increasing rates and moving to places like Bangladesh and Vietnam and Pakistan and others. One of my previous job was a liaison in manufacturing in Vietnam, communicating with western counterpart.

Gambia is an interesting economy, because remittances account for 60% of their GDP.

There are examples of authoritarian countries that do not have a command economy. For instance, Singapore is often cited as an authoritarian country with a mixed-market economy rather than a command economy. While it has strong government control, especially in social and political spheres, its economy operates largely on market principles with a significant degree of private enterprise and investment. Similarly, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have authoritarian regimes but rely heavily on market mechanisms in their economies, particularly in sectors like oil and finance.
Saudi Arabia does not have a strictly command economy. While the government exerts significant control over key sectors, particularly oil, it has increasingly moved towards economic diversification and liberalization in recent years. The country has implemented reforms to encourage private sector growth, foreign investment, and non-oil industries. However, the government still retains considerable influence over the economy through state-owned enterprises and strategic planning. Overall, Saudi Arabia's economy can be described as a mix of market mechanisms and state intervention, rather than a purely command economy.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) does not have a command economy. The UAE's economy is characterized by a mix of free-market principles and government intervention. While the government plays a significant role in guiding the economy, particularly through state-owned enterprises and strategic investments, there is also a strong presence of private enterprise and foreign investment. The UAE has actively pursued economic diversification efforts to reduce reliance on oil revenues and promote sectors such as tourism, finance, and real estate. Overall, the UAE's economy is best described as a mixed-market economy rather than a command economy.

You are correct in that statement, I meant that it's just the way it goes in these Cases, but it's only a bandaid fix to a flesh wound. Relocating out of China is natural in its current trajectory, but moving on to exploit other markets doesn't fix anything, it still makes the west a consumer economy and it's gonna take a long while to even come close to leave the Chinese industrial complex.


Singapore is a complete outlier as it's basically a city state with a parliament. It is unique in its existence and not many states ever manage to unify aspects of authoritarianism and meritocracy just like they do. I attribute that in part to the fact that they need a strong form of nationalism and authority to remain independent while also profiting off of their geographic location and historical importance.

Petrostates in the middle east are heavily reliant on command economies, of course they try to diversify their Portfolios because being reliant on oil and only oil is nothing Future proof. And these states fail at doing so. They try to cover up the usage of quasi slave labor and exploitation of foreigners via grandiose sports washing and trying to become a host nation for sports events and other Entertainment avenues. Saudi Arabias biggest potential future tech is the investment in desalination plants and technology, renewable energy and their finance sector is watched sceptically by western markets.

The UAE, while diversifying a lot of their economy is and still will be reliant on oil exports. They did a good job compared to their qatari and Saudi counterparts though. For another example of petrostates who are not authoritarian and managed to diversify properly look at Norway.

 

[DarkRange55]

If you are familiar with Chinese domestic politics you'd know that Xi is anything but safe in his spot right now. He tried to oust potential competition in the past few years and still has a lot of explaining to do to the regional governments who started to get wary of him once he started offing CEOs of companies with CCP ties. China is known to forge numbers for economic growth, always claiming 5% as their aim, and than regulating It down the following year. In 2022 it was 0,5% and the current estimate for 2023 is around 3% maximum. This is quite horrible for the biggest exporter of goods in the world. There is a huge difference in what the Chinese bureaucrats claim to have grown/invested and what the international bureucrats come up with. This is a textbook ploy of socialist states, the US also hugely overestimated the growth of the USSR.
China at this point is a paper tiger, and is doing to the global stage what Kongmin did to Sima Yi. While its undeniable that it is a superpower, it is that mostly on account of projecting power outward. We don't really know how much of that projection is fact. Look at Russia, which is also considered a super power but is incapable of fighting a war that they started. Chinese is the closest we have to a technocratic cleptocracy, if you ever wanted to feel Cyberpunk in real life you should live in China right now. Who knows for how long they can hold up. Their booming economy is about to crash hard in the next 20 years and anyone familiar with demographical development of nations will agree with this statement. Unless they import millions of laborers into the country, or even worse slaves they will not be able to keep up.




You are right in that there is no communist state in the world. There never has been. Every attempt at communism ended up in either a military dictatorship or a failed state. The closest thing we have are socialist democratic regimes in Europe that built a solid foundation, unions, health insurance and pension plans. I'd love to city Bruno Kreiskys 13 year chancellorship in Austria which pretty much set up everything social democracy ever aimed to do. This system has been so thorough that it took the conservatives 50 years to chip away at it with it still being intact. The original aim for communism was to take aspect of communalism and replace capitalism once it failed. And capitalism hasn't failed yet, at least officially.


You are correct in that statement, I meant that it's just the way it goes in these Cases, but it's only a bandaid fix to a flesh wound. Relocating out of China is natural in its current trajectory, but moving on to exploit other markets doesn't fix anything, it still makes the west a consumer economy.

Oh yeah you are right in that. If authoritarian regimes don't rely on some form of command economy they either are petrostates or rich in other minerals.
Singapore is a complete outlier as it's basically a city state with a parliament. It is unique in its existence and not many states ever manage to unity aspects of authoritarianism and meritocracy just like they do. I attribute that in part to the fact that they need a strong form of nationalism and authority to remain independent while also profiting off of their geographic location and historical importance.

Petrostates in the middle east are heavily reliant on command economies, of course they try to diversify their Portfolios because being reliant on oil and only oil is nothing Future proof. And these states fail at doing so. They try to cover up the usage of quasi slave labor and exploitation of foreigners via grandiose sports washing and trying to become a host nation for sports events and other Entertainment avenues. Saudi Arabias biggest potential future tech is the investment in desalination plants and technology, renewable energy and their finance sector is watched sceptically by western markets.

The UAE, while diversifying a lot of their economy is and still will be reliant on oil exports. They did a good job compared to their qatari and Saudi counterparts though. For another example of petrostates who are not authoritarian and managed to diversify properly look at Norway.

Norway is a good example so is Canada. It's sad how much indentured / quasi-slave labor they use in the Middle East. Singapore also has unique geographic importance for shipping and is supplanting Hong Kong for banking in Asia.

I wouldn't say China and Russia are not superpowers. They are global powers.

Superpowers:

• United States

World/Global Powers:

• China
• Russia (Although they are definitely fast declining)

Regional Powers:

• Japan
• Germany
• UK
• France
• India
• South Korea
• Turkey
• Iran
• Saudi Arabia
• Israel
• Pakistan

In my mind, a Superpower can project power anywhere in the world at several places at once without putting strain on the country. A Global/World Power can potentially project power across most of the world, but it would be more difficult for them to do so. A regional power can project power in their region, or if they work together they can project more power. Some of those countries are regional powers, small regional powers at that too.



And yes, China fabricates much of its economic growth both in numbers and also in the construction of tofu-dreg ghost towns.
The Soviet Union was overestimated but they did manage to compete with the US with a fraction of the economy and population.

 

[DarkRange55]

My friend's dad is deputy minister of finance for Cambodia and has a PhD in Marxism-style finance from the USSR. I should ask him

 

[sserafim]

My friend's dad is deputy minister of finance for Cambodia and has a PhD in Marxism-style finance from the USSR. I should ask him

Is that true? Btw, did you see my DM?

 

[DarkRange55]

Is that true? Btw, did you see my DM?

Yeah, also my friend's father-in-law is the deputy minister of civil aviation. But I got the degrees backwards: his parents studied in the USSR for 15 years. His mom has a phD in Finance (Karl Marx type of finance) and she used to work in the finance ministry. His father has phd in heavy machinery. I believe he's deputy minister of finance, but it's might be a different ministry, I can't remember. He's the deputy minister of some department in Cambodia. I think it's finance. But Cambodia is not exactly communist anymore…
My friend works in private wealth management for Morgan Stanley.

Is that true? Btw, did you see my DM?

Yes, I did

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

Norway is a good example so is Canada. It's sad how much indentured / quasi-slave labor they use in the Middle East. Singapore also has unique geographic importance for shipping and is supplanting Hong Kong for banking in Asia.

I wouldn't say China and Russia are not superpowers. They are global powers.

Superpowers:

• United States

World/Global Powers:

• China
• Russia (Although they are definitely fast declining)

Regional Powers:

• Japan
• Germany
• UK
• France
• India
• South Korea
• Turkey
• Iran
• Saudi Arabia
• Israel
• Pakistan

In my mind, a Superpower can project power anywhere in the world at several places at once without putting strain on the country. A Global/World Power can potentially project power across most of the world, but it would be more difficult for them to do so. A regional power can project power in their region, or if they work together they can project more power. Some of those countries are regional powers, small regional powers at that too.



And yes, China fabricates much of its economic growth both in numbers and also in the construction of tofu-dreg ghost towns.
The Soviet Union was overestimated but they did manage to compete with the US with a fraction of the economy and population.

Even with rapid population decline the absolute worst case projections have China with a population of around 800 million at the turn of the century (2100), which is around 300 million more than the US' projected population. They may not be a superpower right now, but with their gains in technology it should be more than possible for them to surpass the USA and maintain the lead, along with India and Nigeria in maybe 5 decades. Far into the future we may see a new global cold war between India and China where the US and russia are mere coalition allies. (or yknow maybe... just maybe everyone will get along)