neither democracy nor communism…//China: capitalist, imperialist? AI and 5G

Our original post got chopped off: here it is:

AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order /Amazon/Kindle //AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order /Amazon/Kiindle There are any number of books as above warning that China will soon be world dominant in AI, 5G. etc. (alarming books on China are a thriving genre, so who knows): China invests massively in research where the US tends to be somewhat disorganized relying on the market which can misfocus. The capitalist/communist duality is useless for both US and China: our idea of DMNC: ‘democratic market neo-communism”; both China and US are difficient by this model taken as a test: China is hopeless on democracy, the US is imprisoned in capitalism, etc…

update: actually, the US democracy is not that, and the Chinese case is not communism (by our definition)

In reality the US is not democracy and China is not communism. Our DMNC model (democratic market neo-communism) enforces the rule that  ‘communism’ that has no democratic elements is not communist and democracies dominated by the open market are not democracies.

Our model enforces a four term system: democracy (in dialectic with ‘authority’), markets as ‘socialist’ markets based on a commons, and neo-communism to pull away from the misuse of the term ‘communism’ to demand that stalinist systems, for example, are not ‘communist’.

(An example of ‘authority’ would in one variant of our model be a four party system of three parties in a parliament, and a presidential party consisting of a one-party assembly of the revolutionaries who founded the system and are consigned to guard the Commons, but without any larger powers as such. That system can solve the dialectic of democracy/authority but is dangerously liable to derail. But the point is that democracy alone tends to chaotify while authority tends to tyranny. All democracies in fact have, and hide, this factor which should be explict under checks and balances. Our model can produce a dozen variants of this).

Socialism markets have a huge literature on the left, some of it critical, but the issue is not so complex: markets under the DMNC model are based on a Commons after the process of expropriation and are run by managers who license resources from the Commons. Thus ‘oil’ would be in the Commons and Exxon-Mobil after expropriation could process fossil fuels under license and subject to ecological courts that can mediate environmental issues.

The question of democracy is tricky in our DMNC model democracy is matched with a Commons, and with a system of legal and economic rights and can have any number of labor orgs and unions. The idea of a Commons must however confront a global context with a new kind of International: this system can be national but must also consider its transnational context. etc… Nothing even remotely like this has ever been attempted and yet it resolves most of the issues. The ‘socialist market’ has been shot down multiple times but in vain: it is a perfectly good idea done right. A socialist market will suffer some inefficiency due to its place in a larger system, but so does the classic market in say the US before neoliberalism.

Basically if you can inject flea markets into the model, you inject markets. These can be worker owned but in general the equalization factor makes even the distinction of workers and bourgeoisies obsoleter AND/OR on the way to obsolete in a system that starts with former members of given class thrown together in a new evolving system…

The China Fear Factor 

America vs. China: “A Clash of Civilizations”Hillary Clinton famously said, “’I don’t want my grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese.”  During his tenure, President Obama launched his “Pivot to Asia,” moving 60% of US naval power to bases surrounding China, developing the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty specifically to economically isolate China, making Air-Sea Battle the official US doctrine explicitly to contain China militarily, and announcing boldly that his aim was to contain China’s economic rise. 

Source: The China Fear Factor | Portside

  China to sino-form the planet? China is one of the most ethnocentric cultures in the world, global domination will never succeed…

uh-oh, we need a new blog category: yellow peril.

The book here in question is from a critic, apparently, but is provocative on the future of the Chinese brand of civilization/communism. The flaw was in the original Marxist model and the Bolshevik heritage is fatally confusing. The American brand is already a failure. Let’s learn some kind of lesson here.
Let us hope the Chinese are not dumb enough to act as charged.
Christian nations had an entire religion of cultural integration, and even that failed. The Chinese could never integrate a global culture save at the level of genocide, the starting point for the Maoist venture: one million capitalists murdered.
China does not have the cultural or ideological resources to make the world an empire, save at the level of barbarism. Its action in Tibet and with the Uighurs shows at once that it will fail but it could fail through genocide first. I blame the author of this critique, maybe…
Communism was a failure from the start and guarantees China’s failure.

This book on China is compelling and invites comparison with the US. I should refrain instead, it is VERY hard to get it right, but some speculative warnings. There is something tragic about both C…

Source:  US, China: US, beacon of democracy or continental rape by a bunch of hooligans…? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 US, China: US, beacon of democracy or continental rape by a bunch of hooligans…?

This book on China is compelling and invites comparison with the US.
I should refrain instead, it is VERY hard to get it right, but some speculative warnings. There is something tragic about both China and the US. China is easy to underestimate, but it has a solid place in historical evolution as the eonic effect shows, it created Zen Buddhism, where the US is far more fragile in the long run. It could lose its economic powerhouse status in a blink and then confront its real legacy of democratic hope and utterly dismal record of capitalist mayhem, imperialism and genocide, covert fascism, and racism. The US preaches democracy where it doesn’t really exist. History moves on from its democratic failures, we could end like Athens in limbo after 400 BCE. The US, like Russia was marginal to the eonic series but became an open field for the English (and French) transition zones and just around the end of the modern transition becomes the bearer for especially the English modernity. The US will gain a huge plus to its legacy in the defeat of slavery, but so far still mired in racism. I am by no means equipped for this judgment and the Chinese case is almost too tricky to discuss. I have been critical here on the grounds of its faux communism, but as the book suggests that outer appearance is the second coming, or third, of manderin exam-sifted elites with trappings of Marx/Engels. More study needed here. With China one hardly knows what one is seeing.

One should definitely set down some notes, toward a final judgment, as a scare tactic at least. And as an aside denounce the damage done by Darwinism. People have truly come to believe they are in a social darwinist struggle of men and nations, but that is not true. In classical occidental antiquity we see that the Darwinian survivors don’t advance but degrade civilization: look at the starting point: the great Greek flowering, followed by the slow but steady social darwinist victory of the Romans and what an ugly endpoint, a cul de sac. Note that something had to intervene in history to repair the damage of the Darwinian struggle. That’s the puzzle of Christianity whose own legacy is also problematical. And it is not a question of theism. Christianity was almost as flawed as a religion as the Rome world was as a pack of wolves.
Enough: we can’t move to a conclusion. But the US has no grounds for complacency.

The idea that China is going to sino-form the whole planet is provocative in the extreme. China is in no position to do much of anything: it can’t even handle Tiber or the Uighuirs, so have a tragedy in motion. The socialist is a failed outcome in China. The future must redefine socialism all over again.

I think the title is wrong here, but the book is a highly useful perspective, however correct, on the enigma of China, its history, and distinct characteristics.

Source: You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-form the World – – 1848+: The End(s) of History