The far-right populist Alternative for Germany party rejects a values-based foreign policy, just as much as it rejects NATO and the US. That approach has attracted the attention of Beijing.
I’m not absolutely sure what you mean by the first sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that you’re confusing the fact that the questions have things in common, whether they are about similar topics, or whether one question is relevant to another because implies consequences that determine or influence our answers to the other questions, with the idea that they are the same single question. The fact that China’s government has very high approval by all measures, is not proof that the government is democratically run in a socialist sense. Indeed we know it’s not, because Chinese workers do not have direct control over the means of production. So it’s not sufficient for it to be democratic. However it’s almost definitely a necessary condition, so you would need it, and it is evidence in favor in the weak sense that it does not refute the idea that China is democratic by itself. But there is other evidence not in favor.
But historical materialism is not mystical nonsense where suddenly everything connected or with any property in common in suddenly identical. It’s not a metaphysical calculator you can use to answer every question.
Democratic Centralism is a theory about how a party should be organized. It has no bearing on a linguistic or semantic question. End of. What it implies, which you seem to me to be confusing with the idea that these are the same question, is that the questions practically have to be considered together, or that you can’t answer one without one or more of the others. I completely agree in the latter case. As evidenced by this very discussion, it will be difficult to enter into a discussion where you discuss one but you don’t discuss the others. But they are not the same thing, and saying they are is just a logical error (which dialectical materialism or democratic centralism have nothing to do with) which ends up with us treating China as closer to socialism than it actually is, which is a massive failure on our part as Marxists. For Marxists more than any else, we have a duty to be clear, because the truth is on our side and we are not in power.
Okay but if but now I need to ask the exact same question about the word ‘immediate’. This seems to be a synonym for ‘direct’ here, so it doesn’t necessarily make it more clear to me what it means. In a dialectical context it is difficult to make any sense of the concept of directness or immediately (unless it is meant relatively), due to the omnipresence of mediation. I’m assuming therefore that you don’t mean it in that more philosophical or meta-theoretical sense as used in the Marxist tradition. I’m guessing you just mean that practically it is more important or pressing for China’s interests if it is more direct, in that it should be given priority as an objective.
In that sense I don’t completely disagree with you, but there’s also a difference between not having an aggressive policy towards Israel and actively funding it’s settler-colonial apartheid project. Why is the latter sometimes treated as absolutely and necessarily unjustifiable in some cases but not here?
My claim in the first part is not a philosophical claim about the possibility of separate questions interacting, it’s that a judgement of existing socialism based on the dividing of some necessary or sufficient conditions as opposed to how these are intended to maximize the democratic process as a whole while integrated over time (meaning that these processes continually allow for the better development of all aspects of democracy. With the most portant being that the interests of the working class and desired results of the people are achieved. Any further division is unnecessary at this stage. Improvements are another, but the way you philosophically divide it is not something that hasn’t already been discussed as infinitum and understood by our Chinese comrades. This is what I intended at the beginning, though I did sloppily present that, including a use of “democratic centralism” without being clear that I meant “it’s against the principles and plans which have been determined best by democratic centralism incorporating the interests of about 18% of the world population.”
The fact that it’s not yet communist and/or fully worker owned is just unfortunately not yet relevant at all. It’s not philosophically incorrect, just divisive and not necessary, because the plan to arrive there has been clearly laid out. Is your critique on that plan then, or just the current state? The plan, unfortunately, currently includes being so protectionist that they can’t intervene against Israel and must include them in the global trading powerhouse they are developing. I say unfortunately, but know that I mean that I wish it could be otherwise but the scientific approach has led to that conclusion based on the failure of other approaches. I find it a conservative (here meaning not radical) approach, but conflict avoidance does currently entail trade with all States which are not currently threatening China, especially those in hotspots of western imperialism to drag them away from american-centric policies. China will eventually hopefully be able to utilize this dominance to push radically, and I will most definitely critique the approach if this doesn’t change once war with america is no longer a giant possibility.
I use immediacy to describe the time-aspect, and I don’t think I made that clear based on your response, so here my response may seem tangential but I think we are just not using the terms the same so I’m going off of my intended meaning and ignoring what I think was a response to something I didn’t mean. We have geographic and time variables at play (which affect each other in pretty obvious ways i think). Russia was presented with both immediacy and directness of the fascists at their border (and the USSR before them, of course). China with Israel has determined that both are not at play, that Israel is not a “becoming” problem for them as a possible war actor and is geographically not direct. “The omnipresence of mediation” how you use it here seems to be an almost trotsky-like position where all issues must be tackled simultaneously, which I can’t see concluding anything except for for the immediate attempt at the overthrow of all capitalist nations by every communist. I’d love it, but Stalin was, i think, proven correct that socialism in one country was necessary in those conditions (pre WW2, though I think we all usually agree he shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin lol) and therefore the omnipresent mediation does not supersede the immediacy or directness aspect.
Good Convo though, even though we’re talking a bit last one another. You seem more knowledgeable about the philosophical terms, and I appreciate your fairly clear usage. Still haven’t read grundrisse lol
I’m not absolutely sure what you mean by the first sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that you’re confusing the fact that the questions have things in common, whether they are about similar topics, or whether one question is relevant to another because implies consequences that determine or influence our answers to the other questions, with the idea that they are the same single question. The fact that China’s government has very high approval by all measures, is not proof that the government is democratically run in a socialist sense. Indeed we know it’s not, because Chinese workers do not have direct control over the means of production. So it’s not sufficient for it to be democratic. However it’s almost definitely a necessary condition, so you would need it, and it is evidence in favor in the weak sense that it does not refute the idea that China is democratic by itself. But there is other evidence not in favor.
But historical materialism is not mystical nonsense where suddenly everything connected or with any property in common in suddenly identical. It’s not a metaphysical calculator you can use to answer every question.
Democratic Centralism is a theory about how a party should be organized. It has no bearing on a linguistic or semantic question. End of. What it implies, which you seem to me to be confusing with the idea that these are the same question, is that the questions practically have to be considered together, or that you can’t answer one without one or more of the others. I completely agree in the latter case. As evidenced by this very discussion, it will be difficult to enter into a discussion where you discuss one but you don’t discuss the others. But they are not the same thing, and saying they are is just a logical error (which dialectical materialism or democratic centralism have nothing to do with) which ends up with us treating China as closer to socialism than it actually is, which is a massive failure on our part as Marxists. For Marxists more than any else, we have a duty to be clear, because the truth is on our side and we are not in power.
Okay but if but now I need to ask the exact same question about the word ‘immediate’. This seems to be a synonym for ‘direct’ here, so it doesn’t necessarily make it more clear to me what it means. In a dialectical context it is difficult to make any sense of the concept of directness or immediately (unless it is meant relatively), due to the omnipresence of mediation. I’m assuming therefore that you don’t mean it in that more philosophical or meta-theoretical sense as used in the Marxist tradition. I’m guessing you just mean that practically it is more important or pressing for China’s interests if it is more direct, in that it should be given priority as an objective.
In that sense I don’t completely disagree with you, but there’s also a difference between not having an aggressive policy towards Israel and actively funding it’s settler-colonial apartheid project. Why is the latter sometimes treated as absolutely and necessarily unjustifiable in some cases but not here?
My claim in the first part is not a philosophical claim about the possibility of separate questions interacting, it’s that a judgement of existing socialism based on the dividing of some necessary or sufficient conditions as opposed to how these are intended to maximize the democratic process as a whole while integrated over time (meaning that these processes continually allow for the better development of all aspects of democracy. With the most portant being that the interests of the working class and desired results of the people are achieved. Any further division is unnecessary at this stage. Improvements are another, but the way you philosophically divide it is not something that hasn’t already been discussed as infinitum and understood by our Chinese comrades. This is what I intended at the beginning, though I did sloppily present that, including a use of “democratic centralism” without being clear that I meant “it’s against the principles and plans which have been determined best by democratic centralism incorporating the interests of about 18% of the world population.”
The fact that it’s not yet communist and/or fully worker owned is just unfortunately not yet relevant at all. It’s not philosophically incorrect, just divisive and not necessary, because the plan to arrive there has been clearly laid out. Is your critique on that plan then, or just the current state? The plan, unfortunately, currently includes being so protectionist that they can’t intervene against Israel and must include them in the global trading powerhouse they are developing. I say unfortunately, but know that I mean that I wish it could be otherwise but the scientific approach has led to that conclusion based on the failure of other approaches. I find it a conservative (here meaning not radical) approach, but conflict avoidance does currently entail trade with all States which are not currently threatening China, especially those in hotspots of western imperialism to drag them away from american-centric policies. China will eventually hopefully be able to utilize this dominance to push radically, and I will most definitely critique the approach if this doesn’t change once war with america is no longer a giant possibility.
I use immediacy to describe the time-aspect, and I don’t think I made that clear based on your response, so here my response may seem tangential but I think we are just not using the terms the same so I’m going off of my intended meaning and ignoring what I think was a response to something I didn’t mean. We have geographic and time variables at play (which affect each other in pretty obvious ways i think). Russia was presented with both immediacy and directness of the fascists at their border (and the USSR before them, of course). China with Israel has determined that both are not at play, that Israel is not a “becoming” problem for them as a possible war actor and is geographically not direct. “The omnipresence of mediation” how you use it here seems to be an almost trotsky-like position where all issues must be tackled simultaneously, which I can’t see concluding anything except for for the immediate attempt at the overthrow of all capitalist nations by every communist. I’d love it, but Stalin was, i think, proven correct that socialism in one country was necessary in those conditions (pre WW2, though I think we all usually agree he shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin lol) and therefore the omnipresent mediation does not supersede the immediacy or directness aspect.
Good Convo though, even though we’re talking a bit last one another. You seem more knowledgeable about the philosophical terms, and I appreciate your fairly clear usage. Still haven’t read grundrisse lol