On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:25:56 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/2024 3:15 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:49:52?PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.
>>> Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
>>> Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
>>> Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
>>> in that direction.
>>>> Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
>>>> allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.
>>> This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
>>> to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
>>> country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
>>> was for a while.
>>>> Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
>>>> not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.
>>> Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
>>> subject to that government.
>>>
>>
>> Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
>> Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
>> replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
>> The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
>> history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
>> The Mandate of Heaven?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
>>
>> Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.
>
>I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
>Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
>dynasty China.
>
>Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.

This is why I expect that, when China enters her next "warring
kingdoms" phase, it will be "warring People's Republics" and the
leaders will be "Central Committee Chairmen" rather than "warlords".

But it will be the same-old same-old. Except, of course, that some of
them will have nukes.

Interesting times ahead, indeed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/12/2024 8:46 PM, Tony Nance wrote:
> On 2/12/24 1:19 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 2/11/2024 6:41 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2024 03:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
>>>>> without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
>>>>> that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
>>>>> sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
>>>>> philosophical sense.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
>>>> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
>>>> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>>>>
>>>> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
>>>> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
>>>> were Comunist.
>>>>
>>>> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
>>>> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah sure.....
>>>
>>> I do wonder whether Communism would have
>>> run better if all the other countries of
>>> the world hadn't been vigorously at war
>>> against it from day zero.  Huge effort
>>> and a vast amount of money was invested
>>> by us to nobble it.  And still is.
>>
>> The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
>> even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
>> they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
>> in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
>> enriching themselves.
>>
>
> Sadly, that's kinda what most (all?) human systems/regimes *do* in the
> long run, right? The people with the power inevitably rig things so that
> they stay in power, and they benefit more than the ones who aren't in
> power.

Yes. The end state is a hereditary royalty, with absolute power. Getting
away from that over the past 1000 years has been an immense benefit to
most of the people, though not to the former rulers.

We're seeing a reversion to the mean at the moment, with power
and wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands, who use their
wealth and power to change laws to favor of their retention of
wealth and power.

pt

On 13 Feb 2024 03:07:08 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Yes, but this pretty much is the case for any organization, and eventually
> it has to be cleaned out. Ever been on a con committee before? Or seen
> an HOA from the inside? It's not just socialism, it is humanity.

But *can* it be cleaned out? I have no hope that what descended from
the League of Amerian Wheelmen can ever cease to be the most
anti-bicycle organization around.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Len=
>inism-
>Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what wou=
>ld=20
>replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one=
> could describe=20
>The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a tota=
>litarian=20
>history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it =
>any legitimacy?=20

For a while after his death, the Cult of Mao died off somewhat in China
and although the government did consider themselves created and inspired
by Mao, they weren't hanging big Mao banners up everywhere.

But, in more recent years, the Mao banners have been coming back, precisely
for the reason you state. Thankfully the Maoist notion of "permanent state
of revolution" has not come back although I am sure the current management
has it waiting in the wings if it is necessary for them to retain power.

>Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.=20

Maoism also has the same kind of problem that Reaganism has, in that the
young Mao was a genius general (one who even defined the birth of a state)
but who stayed in power far too long and who was a raving and drooling
fool later in life (witness the Cultural Revolution). When someone speaks
of Mao, which one are they talking about? Or are they talking about Mao
the abstract symbol of China?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 9 Apr 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Len=
>> inism-
>> Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what wou=
>> ld=20
>> replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one=
>> could describe=20
>> The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a tota=
>> litarian=20
>> history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it =
>> any legitimacy?=20
>
> For a while after his death, the Cult of Mao died off somewhat in China
> and although the government did consider themselves created and inspired
> by Mao, they weren't hanging big Mao banners up everywhere.
>
> But, in more recent years, the Mao banners have been coming back, precisely
> for the reason you state. Thankfully the Maoist notion of "permanent state
> of revolution" has not come back although I am sure the current management
> has it waiting in the wings if it is necessary for them to retain power.

It seems they are all using the same playbook. I think Putin has brought
back and rehabilitated Stalin as well the last couple of years.

>> Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.=20
>
> Maoism also has the same kind of problem that Reaganism has, in that the
> young Mao was a genius general (one who even defined the birth of a state)
> but who stayed in power far too long and who was a raving and drooling
> fool later in life (witness the Cultural Revolution). When someone speaks
> of Mao, which one are they talking about? Or are they talking about Mao
> the abstract symbol of China?
> --scott
>