Haven’t watched the video yet (love Ben Norton’s work though so i’ll definitely give it a listen when i have time), but i’d say it’s unlikely unless and until they ditch the Modi era neoliberalism and adopt policies more like China’s. Right now they appear to be stuck in the kind of trap that the IMF usually lays for countries in the global south, where economic and social growth is crippled by liberalization, as the country is fooled into thinking that it can skip the industrialization step and go straight to the tech/services/finance/real estate stage that the West is at in the false belief that this will lead to similar prosperity as in the West, blind to the fact that the West’s wealth is really in large part a result of imperialist/neo-colonial exploitation of countries like theirs. Meanwhile their country’s wealth and the value generated by its labor is not used to grow a real economy but is funneled into the pockets of local oligarchies and foreign investors. That is not a recipe for creating a superpower, even with a country as large, populous and rich in natural resources as India that would otherwise have the potential.
That’s basically what they explain in the video. They point out that China is an outlier due to Mao era policies that ensured there was a strong educated working class, social support systems, and infrastructure necessary to bootstrap the manufacturing economy. India lacks these fundamentals and it’s trying to use the service industry to drive the economy. However, even here they’re primarily relying on US companies instead of have developing their own platforms the way China did. They also talk about the role of the public sector in China and the fact that banking is publicly owned, meaning that China is able to direct labor and capital allocation far more effectively. It’s a really good contrast of socialist and capitalist paths of development. The video is worth saving to show people who claim China is capitalist.
If only there was a transitional phase, spanning a historical epoch, between capitalism and communism. Socialism, or something like that…
Neither private property nor billionaires disprove socialism. Such criteria are of moralist origin, it is plain revisionism to force moralism where it does not belong to begin with.
“Neither private property nor billionaires disprove socialism.” - I mean, the world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, had abolished private property and didn’t have billionaires. Neither did Yugoslavia and neither does Cuba, just to name a few.
“Such criteria are of moralist origin, it is plain revisionism to force moralism where it does not belong to begin with.” - This is a stupid and lazy argument. If anyone’s a revisionist, it’s you. Communism is a stateless, moneyless and classless society. Socialism is the road to Communism. Private property and billionaires (literally capitalists) are a barrier to achieving a Communist society. It can be argued that China has the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that it is progressive and that it has elements of a socialist political economy, but I don’t consider it socialist. If you can argue that China is socialist, then you can argue that the UK and America are socialist. How would you define socialism?
Haven’t watched the video yet (love Ben Norton’s work though so i’ll definitely give it a listen when i have time), but i’d say it’s unlikely unless and until they ditch the Modi era neoliberalism and adopt policies more like China’s. Right now they appear to be stuck in the kind of trap that the IMF usually lays for countries in the global south, where economic and social growth is crippled by liberalization, as the country is fooled into thinking that it can skip the industrialization step and go straight to the tech/services/finance/real estate stage that the West is at in the false belief that this will lead to similar prosperity as in the West, blind to the fact that the West’s wealth is really in large part a result of imperialist/neo-colonial exploitation of countries like theirs. Meanwhile their country’s wealth and the value generated by its labor is not used to grow a real economy but is funneled into the pockets of local oligarchies and foreign investors. That is not a recipe for creating a superpower, even with a country as large, populous and rich in natural resources as India that would otherwise have the potential.
That’s basically what they explain in the video. They point out that China is an outlier due to Mao era policies that ensured there was a strong educated working class, social support systems, and infrastructure necessary to bootstrap the manufacturing economy. India lacks these fundamentals and it’s trying to use the service industry to drive the economy. However, even here they’re primarily relying on US companies instead of have developing their own platforms the way China did. They also talk about the role of the public sector in China and the fact that banking is publicly owned, meaning that China is able to direct labor and capital allocation far more effectively. It’s a really good contrast of socialist and capitalist paths of development. The video is worth saving to show people who claim China is capitalist.
I always thought China was Capitalist. They haven’t abolished private property, and they have billionaires.
If only there was a transitional phase, spanning a historical epoch, between capitalism and communism. Socialism, or something like that…
Neither private property nor billionaires disprove socialism. Such criteria are of moralist origin, it is plain revisionism to force moralism where it does not belong to begin with.
“Neither private property nor billionaires disprove socialism.” - I mean, the world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, had abolished private property and didn’t have billionaires. Neither did Yugoslavia and neither does Cuba, just to name a few.
“Such criteria are of moralist origin, it is plain revisionism to force moralism where it does not belong to begin with.” - This is a stupid and lazy argument. If anyone’s a revisionist, it’s you. Communism is a stateless, moneyless and classless society. Socialism is the road to Communism. Private property and billionaires (literally capitalists) are a barrier to achieving a Communist society. It can be argued that China has the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that it is progressive and that it has elements of a socialist political economy, but I don’t consider it socialist. If you can argue that China is socialist, then you can argue that the UK and America are socialist. How would you define socialism?