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…