Communism doesn't work on small scale (see Kropotkin's Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail). Communism requires the abolition of money and commodity production consequently it requires world communism.
Communism is by its very definition stateless, the USSR nor China were ever stateless. Nanjie is not communist either.
Ofcourse China and Russia never became Communist - they were 3rd world nations, they needed to industrialize the nations and progress the forces of production. Also in Mao's case he saw it as important to change the superstructure i.e. Mao thought class struggle, culture and ideology as very important and this is obvious in his efforts to revolutionize every part of Chinese Society. However both nations lost their way through corruption and revisionism.
The USSR makes a change from above and the result was a social disaster. At the same time China change from under and the result was a disaster because of free trade for capitalist’s countries.
14 hours works in Greece, Portugal, or you are a homeless, in western countries. How many millions of homeless live in USA? our Meka of civilisation.
Maoism does not work. But in this little Maoist village you see what could become ir a genuine communist movement would take power in China. But the Chinese ''Communist'' Party is a capitalist party who has no contact with the working class of China. The CCP is ruled by rich elitists who all became powerful under Deng Xiaoping.
Maoism failed because of its totalitarianism and anticommunism. Yes, anticommunist because Mao's China was in total opposition to Marx's ideal of a communist society.
i am Chinese,I know it's totally a political liar to meet some extreme-left old beaura.As I know,it lacks profits and run not well,and the country give some money to make it coninue to run.
Imagine if George W Bush went on television and admitted "Violent invasions for resources, poverty, and inequality are a capitalist problems, It's inevitable."
He doesn't, but it's true. These people are an evolutionary step above the horrible world we live in. But the reporter can't wait to run them down for trying to be better.
Well, peak oil is coming. I hope you have fun being greedy by yourselves when all you have to eat is dust.
all anti "made in china" dharam tbegs including the fvcker dalai lama better stop flying, as all boeing and airbus air planes are partially made from "made in china" parts !
it's not socialism,it is shameless slavery.According to rencently chinese reports,its development rely on huge bank loans and exploiting cheap adventive workers.Their leaders are corrupt.one of them was found has several wives after he was dead. It's nearly bankrupt now.
It's even not as fair as outsider chinese bloody capitalism.
Ah, yes, you mean the "totally unbiased" account of the CAPITALIST main chinese government, heirs of Deng Xiaoping's legacy of the "It's Glorious to get RICH!". No wonder it's totally subservient press wants to continue the destruction of socialism just as the reformers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So the village is a collective but I didn't see any evidence that it was actually socialist. Looks like a state run collective to me much like they had in the Soviet Union. This isn't socialism, it's just state capitalism enforced through communal means. And apparently since they seem to be "in debt" (which wouldn't be possible if it were truly communist) it sounds like the state won't allow it to exist much longer anyway. Mao must be rolling in his grave.
lol! what is Socialism if not this?? everyone works, everyone eats. every single citie in china and even in many west european countries is more or less debt. sure it's not pure communist, that's not possible when rest of the country is capitalize, but it sure is socialist, you cant deny that.
in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until a ghost came and killed her so if ur reading this u will find a bloody body in your closet hanging there haunting you and will kill you and ur family and if u want to stop this just sends this to 6 videos in 30 mins or this will happen good luck!!!
When was this video was produced and this doesn't reflect the current situation in any of China's villages. This seem to be the problem is that many foreign documents about China, especially the ones bitching about China, were the facts and stories existed at least ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. How can we justify the truth about the China? Tell me why???
The mystery of Nanjie village broke like a bubble several years ago. The mystery in fact based on two things: 1st is the cheap migrant labour, 2nd and most important is the loan from the agricultral bank of china. Now the village has bankrupt with more than a billion of debt to the bank.
However right now, the limitation of human understanding in this concept and lack of devotion in action will cause unbalanced thinking, most people will just BS around all day and not contribute at all and eventrually burden the system and causing a break down. but I do believe it is possible if a community of people are hard working and educated since they were born to live your life for everyone can actually turn this out a real model.
it is hard to have the village to stand on itself, because a village is just so small, you can just do so many things. but if, we have a community, that makes everything, from growing wheats raising pigs to refineries hightech, I believe it is possible to have the whole community sufficient self supply( debt free) and since they have extremely high productivity, they will have the community trade surplus, and that should bring them stuff outside of the community.
the north koreans go by their own will to escape the tyrany of their goverment. china in acepting them somewhat is actually helping them. its the lesser of two evils
what about the american and russian weapons trade? the american weapons trade is 30 times the size, the russian one s nearly twice the size. ad second of all, much more people are dying at the hands of americans and their jewish counterparts than than most other countries combined
In this ideal social structure, there will be no currency, therefore, there will be no difference between rich and poor, no corruption, no unemployment rate, no crime rate. As you can see, the workers are not getting paid, note that they have high degree of understanding in communism, everyone is making it a better place, and there are plenty of people thats willing to sweep the floor all day for free. In this system, you will feel you are family with everyone else. its not a complicated system
No matter what system you are in there will be corruption, and thats why theres a reason for the existance of the communism. The founder of communism thinks for the majority of people, its an ideal social envirnment for people when 1: achieved extreamely high producticity, 2: its' people has high degree of understanding of the basic concept of communism, that is do what you can to others, and get what you need for yourself.
NOw now! China can actually learn from this village. People can still enjoy what a capitalist life style can give in this place. All it has to do is feed on the products of the capitalist system. Gov't buys everything and just gives a certain amount of freedom to the people how many and what kind of branded products they want.
There is another similar village in China, called HuaXi. Every family there has a free house (not apartment...reasonably good house), free Benz and millions of savings. The problem is that every time you want to drive your benz...you need the approval from the village officials...and you also need the approval for withdrawing money...
It does? They do seem to be taking on ALOT of bbc world's former correspondents/editors. How many cia controlled media outlets are going to acknowledge all the positives about Nanjie discussed in this report? Now maybe you're right (I wouldn't know), but I do think something fishy's going on. But at least this report is relatively balanced, certainly by american standards (you don't see that many positives in the ny times or the wall street journal on this sort of subject).
Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you NEVER force a man to do anything.
America is wrong about many things, but this principle is well understood there.
And to mangwise:
Are you kidding? "work for fun"? this recall me the propaganda used in the Soviet Union.If you're not working, who provide you food? that right - nobody.
While in the Social-Capitalism the state provide the basic need to the poors.
Communism is an economic system, its like blaming the failing of African economies on democracy: its related but its not the cause, sadly 50 years of brainwashing later most now use the term without a slightest understanding of what it means.
Its funny how Americans are turning more and more socialist these days, you have no idea how many "greedy communists" I heard recently, capitalism is nice when you are winning, now that China is beating the US at its own game its not so nice anymore
Imagine Obama promised free healthcare, free education, 50% reduction in oil prices and guarenteed employment based on your education (which you can choose youself), and actually made it happen, do you think he will be more or less popular?
the answer is less: he will piss off the rich and any poli-sci will tell you its much better to piss off the poor than to piss off the rich.
If communism worked and was so good, why isn't there any pure rich communist state in this entire world? It simply does not work, no matter how you try to spin it.
Proven by the fact that this is the last such village.
In other words to be communist is to be poor. By "pure" I meant a communist country that is purely communist. CCP China now enjoys the Western "evil" capitalism, they call it an evolved form of communism (not kidding). My friend whose father is a CCP member told me so.
All communist countries can only end up being third world countries. No matter how hard you try, communism cannot create efficient or effective economies. Like trying to land a Volkswagen on the moon.
1. Communism is a philosophy, an ideal. It can only be achieved globally. It should start with the richest and most advanced nation instead of countries like Russia and then China.
2. Most of the European countries have some form of socialism to it. And if you know anything about communism, you should know that socialism is the prelude to communism.
3. Your proof is flawed. This may be the last village from another era but it can be the the first village of another.
Democratic Western countries, except perhaps America, are the most socialist on the planet. Communism should copy the Western system, not vice versa.
There is no hope for communism now days. It's like trying to bring mercantilism or feudalism back. Democracy will evolve and communism is dead.
Communism can never work. Face it. To make communism globally, is to make a dictatorship globally. A dictatorship that has a completely mismanaged economy.
2. If you read Marx, who was from Germany, you would understand that Lenin and Mao twisted his theory to suit their own agenda. In Marx's vision, capitalist countries will "advance" to socialism and when the entire world is ready, communism. That is to put it simply of course but you get the point.
3. Why does it require a dictator to run communism? I think you need to educate yourself a bit before you make such statements.
socialism is not necissarily totalitarian and should not be. the marxist/lenninist "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea is replacing one hierarchy of power for another that empowers more people, but creates a privilidged class in theory (the "working class").
i respect marx for dismantling capitalism and explaining its effects to crush human creativity and innovation by regimenting people to shaping their efforts into servicing capital holders in order to survive and not reaching their true calling. the "dictatorship of the proletariat" solution has proven to undermine social participation and concentrate power into new elites and a disempowered popular society; in the case of china, even regressed to capitalism in order to enlarge a power grab.
this "dictatorship" cannot be justified merely on materialistic gains, just as the crimes of exploitation cannot, and without a moral judgement that all hierarchies that limit the potential contributions of people in society are wrong and are interfering with natural process for the gain of another man at the expense of his fellow, anything can be justified. there needs to be a moral grounding against hierarchical domination in politics as well as the economy; do not mention democracy otherwise
In the case of China, and Russia to certain extend, the material wealth is simply not there. Communism should not be everyone "forced" to work for everyone. Work should be voluntary. In order to do that, you need enough material to satisfy everyone's basic needs such as food and clothing.
I wish the communist party have put in some cap to a person's wealth. Leave unchecked, the rich will get richer and poor poorer and the country will destabilize soon.
Maoist period may appear less individual democracy, but there is good and fair welfare sytem and the corruption is rare.
Let me say this way, if I am an middle class in west countries, I will prefer a democracy system. But if I am a poor farmer in a poor Asian or African country, I will prefer a Maoist system.
But capitalism needs poor people to sustain itself. The difference is... none. It just means places like Burma and Turkmenistan are going to suffer more.
Burma suffest because of Communism. Check the history of the nation. 60 years ago they were a democracy with a fast growing economy. As a matter of fact they were quite wealthy.
For crying out loud, they have gas, oil and gems, why are they so poor now? We both know why. A coup de tat later and you have the current CCP China supported dicatorship.
If their democratic government wasn't disposed they would be very wealthy now.
It's very sad that people are too greedy by nature for an idea as beautiful as socialism not to work. I'm a great admirer of Marx, and it pains me to say this, but it isn't that socialism isn't good enough for people, it's that people aren't good enough for socialism.
That's funny. What's the point of designing a social system for people that will never exist? That's like building a beautiful house that no human can live safely inside.
Socialism is to reduce the pain and the suffering for the lower end of income sector, which is good. However, Marxism also introduced the idea of the removal of the competition, which is bad. You can't remove both incentives from staying out of poverty and working for riches within a society. When mixing with non-democratic government, you are just going to make everyone a lot poorer.
Marxism did not introduce the idea of the removal of the competition. The vision Marx had was that societies are so rich that competition is no longer necessary. The goal of working will be for the joy of working and not to get "ahead".
Without socialism, capitalist society will not promote middle class. The rich will get richer faster and the poor will get poorer faster and the society will destabilize. Socialism is capitalism's self medication. It stabilizes the society, for now.
"The goal of working will be for the joy of working and not to get "ahead"." Have you ever work before? How many people in this world do you think really share this ideal? The problem is that most people, if there are no rich margin, are not willing to take risk to innovate or invest. Of course, if you think economic activities are zero-sum game, by removing to top sector of the society, many will get richer.
Unfortunately, human's advancement is driven by desire and lust rather then need. If you stop people getting "too rich", progress will stop. "capitalist society will not promote middle class." If the economy is manufacturing base, there will be a lot of middle class people. However, as society and economy progress to service base industries, the gap of disparity will be widen. These trends are part of the business cycle, no matter you committed to socialism or capitalism or neither.
You can believe that "human's advancement is driven by desire and lust rather then need" and I will believe otherwise.
We invented religion because of our need to explain the un-explained. Desire and lust?
We invented language, art, paper and book because of our need to communicate. Desire and lust?
Middle class is not created by manufacturing jobs. It is created by unions and fair pay. Capitalism run unchecked will turn workers into slaves even if they are paid slaves.
Obviously you have no idea about economics or human history. Pricing on wages are control by supply and demand. Individual inventions can be an accident or an unexplain incident, however, their general adoptation must carry some sort of utility to people. Yes, there is no direct correlation between manufacturing jobs and the Middle class, but only manufacturing sector can have enough productivity gain and profit adding that ensure a sizable portion of the population to become middle class.
Only someone who has no concept of economics and human history will lay claim that "pricing on wages are controlled by supply and demand". Without union, the price on wage would have become lower and lower because there is no incentive for employers to pay more. If you had learned any history at all, you would know that it was the labor movement in Europe and US that drove up the wage and shorten the hour. Without it, your kid would be working 16 hour days 6 days a week when he/she is 12.
Union is just a way to control the supply of labour to bargain for higher wages. UAW is a good example of how falling demand for workers continues to drive down wages and the number of jobs. Japaneses improve their wage level and working condition without the help of unions. Without the control of supply, unions are useless. Can you tell me who can earn more than their bosses or managers? If your company is losing money, you don't expect a raise, right?
Actually, UAW is the perfect example of how, without a union, wage will go down. The demand for worker, in this country, went down because the manufacturers could exploit cheat labors elsewhere. And since there is no global union, the manufacturers was able to drive down the wage AND extending the work force at the same time.
At least wiki "Labor unions in Japan" before you make such statement.
With union, a worker may earn 10% of a manager. Without one, 1/1000. Think about that.
You are arguing a different concept. In the end, You stated that "manufacturers could exploit cheat labors elsewhere". First, that proved my point that unions are useless without the ability to control supply of labour. Second, it isn't exploitation if the workers do their jobs in their own free will. I am not denying that there are unions in Japan, but it is Japanese company's paternalism, not social liberalism that dominate the labour market.
By rising the wage issues, you disproved yourselves in terms of "Love & productive" statement. If they love their jobs, they shouldn't have to be paid anyways. Who cares about wages if people are going work for free? The reason why wage level is important because you think 10% more is less well off than 100000% more. In the end, it drives you to work harder to be a manager, right?
You were the one who claimed that "pricing on wages are control by supply and demand." Without union, each individual will never affect the supply and demand. Union IS the way workers can control the supply of labor. What other use do unions serve? You are making it sound like there is some other purpose to union.
If I have to pay you $100 a day but your kid will happily take $10 a day to do the same thing, in his/her own free will, am I exploiting your kid? Am I exploiting you?
You still fail to prove that pricing is not the result of supply and demand. Beside, unions can't escape the market balance price too far; the net benefits of wage increase, deducing adminstration cost and bargaining expense, may not be as good as you thought. You are also neglecting that there are those who cannot get labour memberships or employment because of unionized jobs. So, you are willing to pay $100 even if you can find another kid to work for you for just $10, you are so sweet.
You are the one who laid the claim that supply and demand drive wage price. The burden of proof is on you. You have to show that when wage goes down, the supply indeed went up; when the demand goes up, the wage will go up. I already showed you the counter example.
I will have to pay you $100 and not $10 to a kid because the union and government demand me NOT to. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. That is my point.
Where did you learn your economics? North Korea? If wage goes down, supply of labour will go down IFF other conditions substain. When the demand of labour goes up, if other conditions are unchanged, wages will go up. With that said, if other conditions appear or change, then you can't use it as an counter example. But I am sorry, where is your counter example? Again, you are mixing manipulation approaches and market value. Every manipulation carries a series of unintensional consequences.
The cruel fact is that supply and demand rule doesn't care about how people live and die. You can go to ease the pain of poverty but you can never destroy the cycle of fat profit margin, new competitors, new ideas, and then market domination again. True socialism, by taking away fat profit margin and entrepreneurs, will only keep lazy people and corrupt government happy.
Apparently you learned your economics in a lab. In reality, all conditions change all the time. Your argument is like arguing everyone will live 500 years IFF they never get sick. Why don't you cite an example in history that your IFF actually happened? Why should I counter prove a hypothetical with reality?
Like you said, employers are driven by the bottom line. It is pure nonsense to think that they will NOT manipulate any way they can to get cheap labor.
If you don't exclude external factors how can you establish the causal relationship of economics? Beside, with your logic, as all conditions change over time, you can't prove socialism improves the living condition of workers either. Employees are also driven by the bottom line, if they think wages are too low, they won't work either. This is not about who wants to manipulate the price, but the market pricing will automatically adjust to the current condition of supply and demand.
Trying to mud the water, are we? With socialism, the minimum living condition is guaranteed by the social programs, affordable housing will let you have a place to stay, food stamp will let you put food in your belly and universal health care will care for you if you are sick. Do I really need to "prove" that these programs improve the living condition of those who otherwise will not have them?
Your theories of economics are all academic. They require controlled conditions which do not exist
These programs can also be implemented in democratic nation with capitalism. As long as voters and taxpayers agree to pay, that's not against free market approach or capitalism. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with charity.
What has democratic got to do with socialism? One is political, one is social-economical. Are you suggesting that there can not be a democratic socialist society?
The struggle between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in this country is the struggle between "free market socialism" and "free market capitalism". To the conservatives, the social programs are "charities" that will only make people lazy. To the liberals, they are what stabilize the society and easy human suffering.
In the end, you cannot mix economic policies with social policies. You can use tax money to ease the pain of low income families, but you can't regulate pricing or profit level. Beside, democracy is the key to proper socialism; if government is irreplacable, the government will then lack the monitor of media and the information of the general public. With socialism, you already have a poorer nation; mixing imperfect information and socialism, then you will have a very poor nation.
What are you talking about? Social policies determine economic policies. You know how we build the middle class that make this country great? New Deal and wage control.
You simply do not get it. "With socialism, you already have a poorer nation"? Where do you get this stuff?
Socialism means heavier tax. And then government will waste a large portion of those money on adminstration cost and programs that people don't really need. If you have wage control, three things will happen: less enterpreneuers, less jobs, and inflation. In the end, you can't build middle class with wage control or "New Deal" or any sort of government programs. It doesn't matter how much people earn, it is their purchasing power that matters.
Do yourself a favor please. Go wiki "New Deal" and see what happened. Go wiki "Socialism" and see what it really means. Go wiki "capitalism" and "inflation" and see how capitalism causes inflation.
By its nature, capitalism does not build middle class. A middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation. Even then, as soon as these regulations are circumvented, middle class is squeeze lower and lower. Just look at what is going on in this country if you need any evidence.
North Korea doesn't have middle class. Cuba? 1950s-80s China? USSR? Venezuela? What governmen regulation can cultivate middle class? The so called "new deal" is 70 years old policy; the world has moved on since then. You must understand, not all employees are equal, not every economic scenario is the same, and no government is effective enough to change business cycle. I had only seen governments that destroy their economy, I had never seen a single nation can prosper without enterprenuers.
Actually, the counter argument to "A middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation" is an example of a country with a middle class that is NOT cultivated by its government.
If my statement was "Any government can create a middle class out of thin air as long as it tried", then your 4 "counter" examples would have made sense.
In Cuba, China (49-79) and USSR, the policies were designed to make everyone equal, not to cultivate middle class.
"I had only seen governments that destroy their economy, I had never seen a single nation can prosper without enterprenuers." Can you counter that? I am eager to know which government is able to create a middle class without corruption that virtually making everyone work for the government become middle class.
I already told you, the New Deal was what created the largest middle class in US. Just because you don't believe it does not make it untrue. With New Deal, the government grew. At the same time, the economy recovered and we had the largest middle class in the world.
By regulation, a government can encourage labor union and fair pay which are the keys to middle class. It does not mean only those who work for the government get to become middle class.
The new deal didn't create the largest middle class in history. If you check unemployment rate, household income, and GDP growth in 1930s, America was still in recession in today's standard. Auto industry did create a middle-class in the US; and Henry Ford volunteered to pay enough wages for his workers to be able to buy the very car they personally built. Please, when you try to tell someone to read history, you should do that first.
"an example of a country with a middle class that is NOT cultivated by its government." That's a logical fallacy against another statement you made, "capitalism does not build middle class". If it isn't being created by the government or economic activities, it must be created God. "the policies were designed to make everyone equal" That's the heart of socialism, is it not?
I think you need to learn a bit more about logic before you use such terms as "logical fallacy".
Let me make my position clear for you: Capitalism does not build middle class. It is against the capitalist principles. Middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation. If you want to counter that, find an example. God does not exist.
Socialism is to take care of ALL. It is not to make everyone equal. Once again, wiki "socialism" and you will know.
I already named it over and over again. The U.S. government created the middle class that made us the envy of the world.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) was the law that established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum wage and outlawed most forms of child labor.
National Recovery Act (NRA), 1933: industries set up codes to reduce unfair competition, raise wages and prices.
And many 3-letter programs that employed millions. Without job, can you home for middle class?
Throughout 1930s, the unemployment rate was double digit; GDP growth was mostly negative except for two years; American export declined for over 80% in dollar value, and 50% in physical volumn; there are estimated that 30% of the people were starving or malnutritious. "Middle class" is not for ones who have no bargaining tools in the market or earning minimum wage that needed government protection. Middle class is the ones who keep getting screw by taxation but receive no charity nor welfare.
Which government can create a "fairer" society without free market and poverty? Can you explain how a socialist society can be more fair than a capitalist one?
I can ask you the same question, have you ever worked before?
You are right about it being an ideal. However, I would argue that many inventors and artists and musician and creative people "worked" not to get "ahead" but because of their love for their "work". I would argue that if we do what we love to do, we are much more productive. It is the society that is not ready for all its citizens to do only they love.
If you take money out of the equation, why would innovation a risk?
You can't take money out of the equation because we are living in a real world. Of course, people can love their work, but they can't survive without earning some sort of income. And yes, people will be more productive if they get more satisfaction with moreworking. However, that's a logical fallacy that people who work for free and love are enough to replace the quality and quantity of those who work for money. Only fat profit margin can attract new competitors and innovators.
Like I said, communism is an ideal on a global scale. It is envisioned for a world so rich in material that people will survive even if they do nothing at all.
It is only a logical fallacy because you tried to substitute your own logic. I never said that we should all work for free NOW. I merely pointed out the fallacy of your earlier statement that no one works for free.
Capitalism leads to monopoly, the fattest margin. Monopoly stifles competition and innovation.
Max was a retard who designed a system that cannot and will not work, most important it should not work. Not everyone is equal in their labor. All marx followers are a burdon on every society.
I think it has the ability to work on a small scale. The majority of native americans (and a large number of other tribes throughout the world) had no system of ownership, but once it's applied to tens of thousands where the people are emotionally distant from their neighbour, it's just too easy to pretend other people don't matter as much as the self.
Actually - regarding Native Americans - that's a complete myth. Julian Steward, Frederick Hodge, Frances Densmore and many others have completely destroyed the myth that there was any sort of 'communal living'. Personal ownership was extremely important.
My mothers tribe, Ahkneeyiweeyaw - you know what our name actually means: The principle people. We're the REAL people, as opposed to others.
Native Americans aren't the panacea that we are sometimes painted to be to the outside world.
All humans in every nation are greedy, corruption hurts every society because people just want to be special and better than. No government system or societal structure can wipe out corruption and greed.
pretty interesting. such a system could work but it would take everyones cooperation. i imagine people that are taken advantage of is one problem and of course the corruption/foul play.
Why is holding onto an egalitarian political system more of a hindrance than a help? You heard it from that one migrant worker herself, she'd rather have residency there than wherever she's from since the quality of life is better than many, if not most, other rural areas. I'm not saying china should back to mass collectivizations everywhere, but it works better than the current socioeconomic system in many rural, urban and suburban areas.
You are ignorant of the intellectual base of socialism and you try to counterargue it with pragmatist reasons. Socialism is the only good way of deciding things in society, because it means non-violence and freedom of all. On the content of the video, corruption exists in socialism, because classes are based on accumulation of social and symbolic capital too, not just the economic. Communists haven't solved that and corruption is a fight against the oligarchs in symbolic capital
I'm probably more knowledgeable about chinese socialism or socialism in general than you are, but that's besides the point. I wasn't arguing that socialism eliminates corruption, I was making the very practical point (like you say) that the material quality of life in Nanjie is higher than in much (if not most) of China today. Can you really argue against equality, health care, free housing, a fair degree of popular empowerment that collectivism provides, which you have very little of today?
Under market socialism that is. As to your somewhat post-structuralist/postmodern point about "symbolic capital," no I don't buy that at all. I don't find it very marxist or helpful in explaining what's going on. Does collectivization have corruption, and the party chief yes, that's inevitable under any system. But you have to keep in mind the context this village is existing in as well, let alone what exists nation-wide in China, namely this brutal form of 30 year old capitalism.
Corruption undoubtedly existed in the Maoist period on, but what has emerged in the last 30 years is probably unprecedented, at least since 1949, and since 1911. Much of the cause of that yes is due to an insufficiently "democratic" form of socialism, but it's likewise due to the combination of that with the horrible exploitation you have under the Deng, Jiang and Hu regimes (the latter has not been quite as bad I suppose). Compared to that, Nanjie is a relative bastion of rural prosperity.
breaks0, the tens of millions of people who died in the Cultural revolution, the denial of personal rights on a scale perhaps never equaled, that's the Maoist legacy. Maybe it works best when it's kept inside of one city.
You're only partially right, mostly not. 10-40 million died in the Great Leap Famine, the worst famine we know in history. Another 5-10 million may've died in the cultural revolution. Let's throw in the Cambodian genocide and tens of millions who died in the USSR (most during WW2) as well. Shall we compare that to the hundre
it may work in isolated incidences. but on a mass scale, communism is a horror show.
issareign 7 months ago
@issareign
Communism doesn't work on small scale (see Kropotkin's Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail). Communism requires the abolition of money and commodity production consequently it requires world communism.
Communism is by its very definition stateless, the USSR nor China were ever stateless. Nanjie is not communist either.
GlobalAlternateMedia 6 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia
Ofcourse China and Russia never became Communist - they were 3rd world nations, they needed to industrialize the nations and progress the forces of production. Also in Mao's case he saw it as important to change the superstructure i.e. Mao thought class struggle, culture and ideology as very important and this is obvious in his efforts to revolutionize every part of Chinese Society. However both nations lost their way through corruption and revisionism.
theMadMarxist 6 months ago
The USSR makes a change from above and the result was a social disaster. At the same time China change from under and the result was a disaster because of free trade for capitalist’s countries.
14 hours works in Greece, Portugal, or you are a homeless, in western countries. How many millions of homeless live in USA? our Meka of civilisation.
Eidikodinamitis 11 months ago 3
@Eidikodinamitis Greek is a disaster already
saigonpunkid 8 months ago
Excellent. Combat capitalism.
ZLUGGO 1 year ago
Maoism does not work. But in this little Maoist village you see what could become ir a genuine communist movement would take power in China. But the Chinese ''Communist'' Party is a capitalist party who has no contact with the working class of China. The CCP is ruled by rich elitists who all became powerful under Deng Xiaoping.
Maoism failed because of its totalitarianism and anticommunism. Yes, anticommunist because Mao's China was in total opposition to Marx's ideal of a communist society.
UDSS 1 year ago 2
@UDSS
Capitalism does not work. Hence I am unemployed.
ZLUGGO 1 year ago
@UDSS It was like that with every "Communist" leader.
ManjuSu 1 year ago
Doesn't look like the paradise its supposed to be. They look really sad...
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
i am Chinese,I know it's totally a political liar to meet some extreme-left old beaura.As I know,it lacks profits and run not well,and the country give some money to make it coninue to run.
xutiantech 1 year ago
Imagine if George W Bush went on television and admitted "Violent invasions for resources, poverty, and inequality are a capitalist problems, It's inevitable."
He doesn't, but it's true. These people are an evolutionary step above the horrible world we live in. But the reporter can't wait to run them down for trying to be better.
Well, peak oil is coming. I hope you have fun being greedy by yourselves when all you have to eat is dust.
sergiodeathstar 1 year ago
Chinese people will again gain its glorious past at time of Mao.
Loon live Maoism..
mariahu22 1 year ago
all anti "made in china" dharam tbegs including the fvcker dalai lama better stop flying, as all boeing and airbus air planes are partially made from "made in china" parts !
lol.........
goldenkey007 1 year ago
China is now run by right wing TERRORISTS. Read
New Witness Tells of 36 China CONCENTRATION CAMPS, Falun Gong Bodies Used as Raw Materials for Profiteering
@@@ faluninfo. net/article/556 (remove space)
Free China from LIVE Organ Harvesting
ChinaKillsTibetans 1 year ago
liar stupid crazy rabbid free tibet hippie scum!
1949FUCKUSA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1949FUCKUSA
Go to
organharvestinvestigation. net/media/Report%20finds%20evidence%20of%20China%27s%20organ%20harvesting.htm (remove spaces)
and learn about LIVE Organ Harvesting in China
ChinaKillsTibetans 1 year ago
hail communism =3
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
As a system designed for universality a communist or socialist system will obviously suffer under the confines of just a single village.
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
it's not socialism,it is shameless slavery.According to rencently chinese reports,its development rely on huge bank loans and exploiting cheap adventive workers.Their leaders are corrupt.one of them was found has several wives after he was dead. It's nearly bankrupt now.
It's even not as fair as outsider chinese bloody capitalism.
snookrooster 1 year ago
@snookrooster
Ah, yes, you mean the "totally unbiased" account of the CAPITALIST main chinese government, heirs of Deng Xiaoping's legacy of the "It's Glorious to get RICH!". No wonder it's totally subservient press wants to continue the destruction of socialism just as the reformers.
EspiralTiempo 1 year ago 4
living there on the outside, appears nice yes.
12valvepower1 2 years ago
the world needs mao and lenin back.the protector of the poor
12valvepower1 2 years ago 8
The world needs Luxemburg back, and Trotsky before 1917.
Propagandhi900 1 year ago
Wow. Funny, but we just don't get good reporting like this from America's corporate ForProfit "news" sources.
But, hey! Free Beer?!?!?!?! Get me a Little Red Book and a hat!
HORNHost 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Free China from DEATH CAMPS
ChinaKillsTibetans 2 years ago
lol
MyCrownOfWorms 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So the village is a collective but I didn't see any evidence that it was actually socialist. Looks like a state run collective to me much like they had in the Soviet Union. This isn't socialism, it's just state capitalism enforced through communal means. And apparently since they seem to be "in debt" (which wouldn't be possible if it were truly communist) it sounds like the state won't allow it to exist much longer anyway. Mao must be rolling in his grave.
toiletsrus 2 years ago
lol! what is Socialism if not this?? everyone works, everyone eats. every single citie in china and even in many west european countries is more or less debt. sure it's not pure communist, that's not possible when rest of the country is capitalize, but it sure is socialist, you cant deny that.
ps. Mao isn't in grave
VoiceOFnatioN 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck all killer maoist governments and maoism,
ulubozkurdum 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
奴隶制(共产主义)，奴隶主(共产党)拥有奴隶(人民)的制度。奴隶(人民)须为奴隶主(共产党)干活，无报酬，且无人身自由。法律确认奴隶为奴隶主的私有财产，共产主义跟奴隶制也一样，国家所有财产归共产党。人民跟本不可能享受自己生产所得的回报。奴隶主(共产党)对奴隶(人民)握有生杀予夺的权力，可随意奴役、杀害。奴隶(人民)没有独立的人格，没有任何自由和权利。
brokensocialism 2 years ago
一个共产主义乌托邦 只有南街居民才能得到各种无休止的福利 外来打工仔还是生活在资本主义的地狱里 不过现在南街这个大垃圾快不行了 听说已经管理层收购了 就跟苏联解体那会 干部 厂长收购国有工厂差不多
chinafuckaltaipig 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until a ghost came and killed her so if ur reading this u will find a bloody body in your closet hanging there haunting you and will kill you and ur family and if u want to stop this just sends this to 6 videos in 30 mins or this will happen good luck!!!
im sorry i dnt wnt to die
hankparish 2 years ago
So there are many migrant workers who do not enjoy the benefits of the residents.
In essence they depend on migrant workers to sustain their lifestyle.
7boon 2 years ago
Search and join the Maoist Revolution yahoo! group!!
tiocfaidh28 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this village could only fool those uneducated, under-class peasants,,,
Village itself maybe socialist, bt its economy basically rely on a much great capitalist outer world,
Socialism could never stand on its own feet, or maybe in North Korea's condition XD
As wt Winston Churchill would say: ----Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
DogyKane 3 years ago
North Korea isn't socialist, as much as it likes to claim it is.
ZombiesNTea 3 years ago 6
Comment removed
leolsliu 3 years ago
Amazing.
Strummerkid 3 years ago 4
I'd love to live there.
I say we socialists form a new country with this system!
Whopzer 3 years ago 9
Communism is a wonderful form of government!
Foreverx1918x 2 years ago 27
@Foreverx1918x its working out pretty good for you right?
datzfast 1 year ago
@Foreverx1918x In which communist country are you living actually?
GilesFarnabyChess 9 months ago
non profit charity state. everyone works. everyone eats
12valvepower1 3 years ago 25
Totally badass. Shows just how "naturally greedy" humanity can be! haha
ZombiesNTea 3 years ago 6
@12valvepower1 everyone works 14 hours a day.everyone eats 2 times a day
StarOfFortune 1 year ago
nanjie is unbelievably beautiful. wow
12valvepower1 3 years ago 5
Nanjie will live forever.
nickglais 3 years ago 8
socialist paradise.. someday, we will be that way. socialism will power us all
12valvepower1 3 years ago 7
so what. right now, the usa is fucked all up.. i deplore you, do not support bush. obama will save us
12valvepower1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is Obama's vision for the future of America.
ltsgt1 3 years ago
When was this video was produced and this doesn't reflect the current situation in any of China's villages. This seem to be the problem is that many foreign documents about China, especially the ones bitching about China, were the facts and stories existed at least ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. How can we justify the truth about the China? Tell me why???
wikct2 3 years ago
I think you miss the point of the video...it's making the point that this is now the only village in China that still operates this system...
tchengaje 3 years ago 2
its not TRUE！這是什麽時候拍攝的？
brokchan 3 years ago
The mystery of Nanjie village broke like a bubble several years ago. The mystery in fact based on two things: 1st is the cheap migrant labour, 2nd and most important is the loan from the agricultral bank of china. Now the village has bankrupt with more than a billion of debt to the bank.
canditxiang 3 years ago
However right now, the limitation of human understanding in this concept and lack of devotion in action will cause unbalanced thinking, most people will just BS around all day and not contribute at all and eventrually burden the system and causing a break down. but I do believe it is possible if a community of people are hard working and educated since they were born to live your life for everyone can actually turn this out a real model.
zys714 3 years ago
it is hard to have the village to stand on itself, because a village is just so small, you can just do so many things. but if, we have a community, that makes everything, from growing wheats raising pigs to refineries hightech, I believe it is possible to have the whole community sufficient self supply( debt free) and since they have extremely high productivity, they will have the community trade surplus, and that should bring them stuff outside of the community.
zys714 3 years ago
everything is free?is there internet in the village?I guess it's kind of isolated...
chrisyang001 3 years ago
Tibet will be Free!
BhutanBoy1982 3 years ago
BhutanBoy1982: Tibet was Free when they got rid of the 14th century, slave-owning, Feudal Theocracy.
banzaidawan 3 years ago
the north koreans go by their own will to escape the tyrany of their goverment. china in acepting them somewhat is actually helping them. its the lesser of two evils
547212436 3 years ago
what about the american and russian weapons trade? the american weapons trade is 30 times the size, the russian one s nearly twice the size. ad second of all, much more people are dying at the hands of americans and their jewish counterparts than than most other countries combined
547212436 3 years ago
fuk u
yukkoro1980 3 years ago
chinocochino123 = sinocu. Same Gay South Korean Turd with No Korean Pride. No Shame.
banzaidawan 3 years ago
I think it's more like a museum than anything else.
google2com 3 years ago
a blast to the past lol, but seriously, its not too bad actually...
547212436 3 years ago
Let's just stick to China's present course of transition from "Primary Capitalism" to "Higher Capitalism" (Capitalism + Socialism), shall we?
banzaidawan 3 years ago
Nanjie village is bankrupt, by the way. They're heavily in debt.
banzaidawan 3 years ago
In this ideal social structure, there will be no currency, therefore, there will be no difference between rich and poor, no corruption, no unemployment rate, no crime rate. As you can see, the workers are not getting paid, note that they have high degree of understanding in communism, everyone is making it a better place, and there are plenty of people thats willing to sweep the floor all day for free. In this system, you will feel you are family with everyone else. its not a complicated system
zys714 3 years ago
true... so true...
547212436 3 years ago
No matter what system you are in there will be corruption, and thats why theres a reason for the existance of the communism. The founder of communism thinks for the majority of people, its an ideal social envirnment for people when 1: achieved extreamely high producticity, 2: its' people has high degree of understanding of the basic concept of communism, that is do what you can to others, and get what you need for yourself.
To be continued....
zys714 3 years ago
Pity that communist leaders stop thinking for the majority of the people
Halfdannn 3 years ago
NOw now! China can actually learn from this village. People can still enjoy what a capitalist life style can give in this place. All it has to do is feed on the products of the capitalist system. Gov't buys everything and just gives a certain amount of freedom to the people how many and what kind of branded products they want.
1942tj 3 years ago
you can't learn a person's feeling only by your judgement,it's only your feeling.
maybe people here feel they are very happy
tangli198865 3 years ago
我怀疑其真实性......如果是真的那也太难以置信了。
disfirer 3 years ago
I have been there. it is real!
wangyuzhang 3 years ago
南街村是真的。的确是共产主义式的。老国防部长张爱萍上将参观的时候曾经写下了"山穷水复疑无路，柳暗花明又一村"。
ljambition 3 years ago
i'm chinese.i'm too surprise to konw that china have a villige like that.=.=
freeapplenut 3 years ago
中国竟然还有这样的地方 连我也不知道=。=
freeapplenut 3 years ago
南街村你不知道，河南临颖南街村，当年最畅销的北京方便面等等都是南街生产的
gongchang02 3 years ago
There is another similar village in China, called HuaXi. Every family there has a free house (not apartment...reasonably good house), free Benz and millions of savings. The problem is that every time you want to drive your benz...you need the approval from the village officials...and you also need the approval for withdrawing money...
mingyuguo 3 years ago
People say that Al-Jazeera is now controlled by the C.I.A.. This video seems to be evidence in support of that idea.
jayraskin 3 years ago
It does? They do seem to be taking on ALOT of bbc world's former correspondents/editors. How many cia controlled media outlets are going to acknowledge all the positives about Nanjie discussed in this report? Now maybe you're right (I wouldn't know), but I do think something fishy's going on. But at least this report is relatively balanced, certainly by american standards (you don't see that many positives in the ny times or the wall street journal on this sort of subject).
breaks0 3 years ago
dagnemrth
This is the basic of the Capitalism:
Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you NEVER force a man to do anything.
America is wrong about many things, but this principle is well understood there.
And to mangwise:
Are you kidding? "work for fun"? this recall me the propaganda used in the Soviet Union.If you're not working, who provide you food? that right - nobody.
While in the Social-Capitalism the state provide the basic need to the poors.
2JcS2 3 years ago
>but you NEVER force a man to do anything.
Thats bullshit. Capitalism force ppl just on other ways.
waken12 3 years ago
Communism is an economic system, its like blaming the failing of African economies on democracy: its related but its not the cause, sadly 50 years of brainwashing later most now use the term without a slightest understanding of what it means.
Its funny how Americans are turning more and more socialist these days, you have no idea how many "greedy communists" I heard recently, capitalism is nice when you are winning, now that China is beating the US at its own game its not so nice anymore
dagnemrth 3 years ago
Imagine Obama promised free healthcare, free education, 50% reduction in oil prices and guarenteed employment based on your education (which you can choose youself), and actually made it happen, do you think he will be more or less popular?
the answer is less: he will piss off the rich and any poli-sci will tell you its much better to piss off the poor than to piss off the rich.
dagnemrth 3 years ago
If communism worked and was so good, why isn't there any pure rich communist state in this entire world? It simply does not work, no matter how you try to spin it.
Proven by the fact that this is the last such village.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
I think you may have misunderstood the basic ideology behind the communist ideal. Being "pure rich" isn't the point.
NekroStevo 3 years ago
In other words to be communist is to be poor. By "pure" I meant a communist country that is purely communist. CCP China now enjoys the Western "evil" capitalism, they call it an evolved form of communism (not kidding). My friend whose father is a CCP member told me so.
All communist countries can only end up being third world countries. No matter how hard you try, communism cannot create efficient or effective economies. Like trying to land a Volkswagen on the moon.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
1. Communism is a philosophy, an ideal. It can only be achieved globally. It should start with the richest and most advanced nation instead of countries like Russia and then China.
2. Most of the European countries have some form of socialism to it. And if you know anything about communism, you should know that socialism is the prelude to communism.
3. Your proof is flawed. This may be the last village from another era but it can be the the first village of another.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Democratic Western countries, except perhaps America, are the most socialist on the planet. Communism should copy the Western system, not vice versa.
There is no hope for communism now days. It's like trying to bring mercantilism or feudalism back. Democracy will evolve and communism is dead.
Communism can never work. Face it. To make communism globally, is to make a dictatorship globally. A dictatorship that has a completely mismanaged economy.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
1. Let's not drag "democratic" into it.
2. If you read Marx, who was from Germany, you would understand that Lenin and Mao twisted his theory to suit their own agenda. In Marx's vision, capitalist countries will "advance" to socialism and when the entire world is ready, communism. That is to put it simply of course but you get the point.
3. Why does it require a dictator to run communism? I think you need to educate yourself a bit before you make such statements.
mengwise36 3 years ago
@ mengwise, i agree with you
Brawn 3 years ago
socialism is not necissarily totalitarian and should not be. the marxist/lenninist "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea is replacing one hierarchy of power for another that empowers more people, but creates a privilidged class in theory (the "working class").
jklasdfjdfksl 3 years ago
i respect marx for dismantling capitalism and explaining its effects to crush human creativity and innovation by regimenting people to shaping their efforts into servicing capital holders in order to survive and not reaching their true calling. the "dictatorship of the proletariat" solution has proven to undermine social participation and concentrate power into new elites and a disempowered popular society; in the case of china, even regressed to capitalism in order to enlarge a power grab.
jklasdfjdfksl 3 years ago
this "dictatorship" cannot be justified merely on materialistic gains, just as the crimes of exploitation cannot, and without a moral judgement that all hierarchies that limit the potential contributions of people in society are wrong and are interfering with natural process for the gain of another man at the expense of his fellow, anything can be justified. there needs to be a moral grounding against hierarchical domination in politics as well as the economy; do not mention democracy otherwise
jklasdfjdfksl 3 years ago
You too are flaming. You can't write too many, too long and too hard text as if you shouldn't care wheather others will understand you.
teemuruskeepaa 3 years ago
Unfortunately, capitalism is eating away the moral teaching. One for all and all for one simply do not mix.
mengwise36 3 years ago
In the case of China, and Russia to certain extend, the material wealth is simply not there. Communism should not be everyone "forced" to work for everyone. Work should be voluntary. In order to do that, you need enough material to satisfy everyone's basic needs such as food and clothing.
I wish the communist party have put in some cap to a person's wealth. Leave unchecked, the rich will get richer and poor poorer and the country will destabilize soon.
mengwise36 3 years ago
I don't really mind the "working class" to be privileged. Today's privileged do not work.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Well...that is something true in this video...
Maoist period may appear less individual democracy, but there is good and fair welfare sytem and the corruption is rare.
Let me say this way, if I am an middle class in west countries, I will prefer a democracy system. But if I am a poor farmer in a poor Asian or African country, I will prefer a Maoist system.
nnbb2008 3 years ago
Communism sucks and will never work. It is a total waste of everything.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
just like you then?
GhostVirusx90 3 years ago
You are a rude fellow. There is not a single communist country left on this planet. Those that are, are pooret people on this planet.
Before the Chinese adapted the capitalist system they were the poorest nation on the planet. Biggest and poorest, what an achievement of communism.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
But capitalism needs poor people to sustain itself. The difference is... none. It just means places like Burma and Turkmenistan are going to suffer more.
GhostVirusx90 3 years ago
Burma suffest because of Communism. Check the history of the nation. 60 years ago they were a democracy with a fast growing economy. As a matter of fact they were quite wealthy.
For crying out loud, they have gas, oil and gems, why are they so poor now? We both know why. A coup de tat later and you have the current CCP China supported dicatorship.
If their democratic government wasn't disposed they would be very wealthy now.
silverhamza37 3 years ago
Communism IS Democracy.
waken12 3 years ago
exactly.. i didnt know this still existed.. i would be proud to live there
Brawn 3 years ago
It's very sad that people are too greedy by nature for an idea as beautiful as socialism not to work. I'm a great admirer of Marx, and it pains me to say this, but it isn't that socialism isn't good enough for people, it's that people aren't good enough for socialism.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
That's funny. What's the point of designing a social system for people that will never exist? That's like building a beautiful house that no human can live safely inside.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Then how do you explain that most European countries have more or less socialism to them?
mengwise36 3 years ago
Socialism is to reduce the pain and the suffering for the lower end of income sector, which is good. However, Marxism also introduced the idea of the removal of the competition, which is bad. You can't remove both incentives from staying out of poverty and working for riches within a society. When mixing with non-democratic government, you are just going to make everyone a lot poorer.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Marxism did not introduce the idea of the removal of the competition. The vision Marx had was that societies are so rich that competition is no longer necessary. The goal of working will be for the joy of working and not to get "ahead".
Without socialism, capitalist society will not promote middle class. The rich will get richer faster and the poor will get poorer faster and the society will destabilize. Socialism is capitalism's self medication. It stabilizes the society, for now.
mengwise36 3 years ago 2
"The goal of working will be for the joy of working and not to get "ahead"." Have you ever work before? How many people in this world do you think really share this ideal? The problem is that most people, if there are no rich margin, are not willing to take risk to innovate or invest. Of course, if you think economic activities are zero-sum game, by removing to top sector of the society, many will get richer.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Unfortunately, human's advancement is driven by desire and lust rather then need. If you stop people getting "too rich", progress will stop. "capitalist society will not promote middle class." If the economy is manufacturing base, there will be a lot of middle class people. However, as society and economy progress to service base industries, the gap of disparity will be widen. These trends are part of the business cycle, no matter you committed to socialism or capitalism or neither.
mercedescl 3 years ago
You can believe that "human's advancement is driven by desire and lust rather then need" and I will believe otherwise.
We invented religion because of our need to explain the un-explained. Desire and lust?
We invented language, art, paper and book because of our need to communicate. Desire and lust?
Middle class is not created by manufacturing jobs. It is created by unions and fair pay. Capitalism run unchecked will turn workers into slaves even if they are paid slaves.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Obviously you have no idea about economics or human history. Pricing on wages are control by supply and demand. Individual inventions can be an accident or an unexplain incident, however, their general adoptation must carry some sort of utility to people. Yes, there is no direct correlation between manufacturing jobs and the Middle class, but only manufacturing sector can have enough productivity gain and profit adding that ensure a sizable portion of the population to become middle class.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Only someone who has no concept of economics and human history will lay claim that "pricing on wages are controlled by supply and demand". Without union, the price on wage would have become lower and lower because there is no incentive for employers to pay more. If you had learned any history at all, you would know that it was the labor movement in Europe and US that drove up the wage and shorten the hour. Without it, your kid would be working 16 hour days 6 days a week when he/she is 12.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Union is just a way to control the supply of labour to bargain for higher wages. UAW is a good example of how falling demand for workers continues to drive down wages and the number of jobs. Japaneses improve their wage level and working condition without the help of unions. Without the control of supply, unions are useless. Can you tell me who can earn more than their bosses or managers? If your company is losing money, you don't expect a raise, right?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Actually, UAW is the perfect example of how, without a union, wage will go down. The demand for worker, in this country, went down because the manufacturers could exploit cheat labors elsewhere. And since there is no global union, the manufacturers was able to drive down the wage AND extending the work force at the same time.
At least wiki "Labor unions in Japan" before you make such statement.
With union, a worker may earn 10% of a manager. Without one, 1/1000. Think about that.
mengwise36 3 years ago
You are arguing a different concept. In the end, You stated that "manufacturers could exploit cheat labors elsewhere". First, that proved my point that unions are useless without the ability to control supply of labour. Second, it isn't exploitation if the workers do their jobs in their own free will. I am not denying that there are unions in Japan, but it is Japanese company's paternalism, not social liberalism that dominate the labour market.
mercedescl 3 years ago
By rising the wage issues, you disproved yourselves in terms of "Love & productive" statement. If they love their jobs, they shouldn't have to be paid anyways. Who cares about wages if people are going work for free? The reason why wage level is important because you think 10% more is less well off than 100000% more. In the end, it drives you to work harder to be a manager, right?
mercedescl 3 years ago
You were the one who claimed that "pricing on wages are control by supply and demand." Without union, each individual will never affect the supply and demand. Union IS the way workers can control the supply of labor. What other use do unions serve? You are making it sound like there is some other purpose to union.
If I have to pay you $100 a day but your kid will happily take $10 a day to do the same thing, in his/her own free will, am I exploiting your kid? Am I exploiting you?
mengwise36 3 years ago
You still fail to prove that pricing is not the result of supply and demand. Beside, unions can't escape the market balance price too far; the net benefits of wage increase, deducing adminstration cost and bargaining expense, may not be as good as you thought. You are also neglecting that there are those who cannot get labour memberships or employment because of unionized jobs. So, you are willing to pay $100 even if you can find another kid to work for you for just $10, you are so sweet.
mercedescl 3 years ago
You are the one who laid the claim that supply and demand drive wage price. The burden of proof is on you. You have to show that when wage goes down, the supply indeed went up; when the demand goes up, the wage will go up. I already showed you the counter example.
I will have to pay you $100 and not $10 to a kid because the union and government demand me NOT to. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. That is my point.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Where did you learn your economics? North Korea? If wage goes down, supply of labour will go down IFF other conditions substain. When the demand of labour goes up, if other conditions are unchanged, wages will go up. With that said, if other conditions appear or change, then you can't use it as an counter example. But I am sorry, where is your counter example? Again, you are mixing manipulation approaches and market value. Every manipulation carries a series of unintensional consequences.
mercedescl 3 years ago
The cruel fact is that supply and demand rule doesn't care about how people live and die. You can go to ease the pain of poverty but you can never destroy the cycle of fat profit margin, new competitors, new ideas, and then market domination again. True socialism, by taking away fat profit margin and entrepreneurs, will only keep lazy people and corrupt government happy.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Apparently you learned your economics in a lab. In reality, all conditions change all the time. Your argument is like arguing everyone will live 500 years IFF they never get sick. Why don't you cite an example in history that your IFF actually happened? Why should I counter prove a hypothetical with reality?
Like you said, employers are driven by the bottom line. It is pure nonsense to think that they will NOT manipulate any way they can to get cheap labor.
mengwise36 3 years ago
If you don't exclude external factors how can you establish the causal relationship of economics? Beside, with your logic, as all conditions change over time, you can't prove socialism improves the living condition of workers either. Employees are also driven by the bottom line, if they think wages are too low, they won't work either. This is not about who wants to manipulate the price, but the market pricing will automatically adjust to the current condition of supply and demand.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Trying to mud the water, are we? With socialism, the minimum living condition is guaranteed by the social programs, affordable housing will let you have a place to stay, food stamp will let you put food in your belly and universal health care will care for you if you are sick. Do I really need to "prove" that these programs improve the living condition of those who otherwise will not have them?
Your theories of economics are all academic. They require controlled conditions which do not exist
mengwise36 3 years ago
These programs can also be implemented in democratic nation with capitalism. As long as voters and taxpayers agree to pay, that's not against free market approach or capitalism. Capitalism is not mutually exclusive with charity.
mercedescl 3 years ago
What has democratic got to do with socialism? One is political, one is social-economical. Are you suggesting that there can not be a democratic socialist society?
The struggle between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in this country is the struggle between "free market socialism" and "free market capitalism". To the conservatives, the social programs are "charities" that will only make people lazy. To the liberals, they are what stabilize the society and easy human suffering.
mengwise36 3 years ago
In the end, you cannot mix economic policies with social policies. You can use tax money to ease the pain of low income families, but you can't regulate pricing or profit level. Beside, democracy is the key to proper socialism; if government is irreplacable, the government will then lack the monitor of media and the information of the general public. With socialism, you already have a poorer nation; mixing imperfect information and socialism, then you will have a very poor nation.
mercedescl 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Social policies determine economic policies. You know how we build the middle class that make this country great? New Deal and wage control.
You simply do not get it. "With socialism, you already have a poorer nation"? Where do you get this stuff?
mengwise36 3 years ago
Socialism means heavier tax. And then government will waste a large portion of those money on adminstration cost and programs that people don't really need. If you have wage control, three things will happen: less enterpreneuers, less jobs, and inflation. In the end, you can't build middle class with wage control or "New Deal" or any sort of government programs. It doesn't matter how much people earn, it is their purchasing power that matters.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Do yourself a favor please. Go wiki "New Deal" and see what happened. Go wiki "Socialism" and see what it really means. Go wiki "capitalism" and "inflation" and see how capitalism causes inflation.
By its nature, capitalism does not build middle class. A middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation. Even then, as soon as these regulations are circumvented, middle class is squeeze lower and lower. Just look at what is going on in this country if you need any evidence.
mengwise36 3 years ago
North Korea doesn't have middle class. Cuba? 1950s-80s China? USSR? Venezuela? What governmen regulation can cultivate middle class? The so called "new deal" is 70 years old policy; the world has moved on since then. You must understand, not all employees are equal, not every economic scenario is the same, and no government is effective enough to change business cycle. I had only seen governments that destroy their economy, I had never seen a single nation can prosper without enterprenuers.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Actually, the counter argument to "A middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation" is an example of a country with a middle class that is NOT cultivated by its government.
If my statement was "Any government can create a middle class out of thin air as long as it tried", then your 4 "counter" examples would have made sense.
In Cuba, China (49-79) and USSR, the policies were designed to make everyone equal, not to cultivate middle class.
mengwise36 3 years ago
"I had only seen governments that destroy their economy, I had never seen a single nation can prosper without enterprenuers." Can you counter that? I am eager to know which government is able to create a middle class without corruption that virtually making everyone work for the government become middle class.
mercedescl 3 years ago
I already told you, the New Deal was what created the largest middle class in US. Just because you don't believe it does not make it untrue. With New Deal, the government grew. At the same time, the economy recovered and we had the largest middle class in the world.
By regulation, a government can encourage labor union and fair pay which are the keys to middle class. It does not mean only those who work for the government get to become middle class.
mengwise36 3 years ago
The new deal didn't create the largest middle class in history. If you check unemployment rate, household income, and GDP growth in 1930s, America was still in recession in today's standard. Auto industry did create a middle-class in the US; and Henry Ford volunteered to pay enough wages for his workers to be able to buy the very car they personally built. Please, when you try to tell someone to read history, you should do that first.
mercedescl 3 years ago
"an example of a country with a middle class that is NOT cultivated by its government." That's a logical fallacy against another statement you made, "capitalism does not build middle class". If it isn't being created by the government or economic activities, it must be created God. "the policies were designed to make everyone equal" That's the heart of socialism, is it not?
mercedescl 3 years ago
I think you need to learn a bit more about logic before you use such terms as "logical fallacy".
Let me make my position clear for you: Capitalism does not build middle class. It is against the capitalist principles. Middle class can ONLY be cultivated by government regulation. If you want to counter that, find an example. God does not exist.
Socialism is to take care of ALL. It is not to make everyone equal. Once again, wiki "socialism" and you will know.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Which government regulation can cultivate middle class? Can you name a single government that can create a middle-class so we can end our discussion?
mercedescl 3 years ago
I already named it over and over again. The U.S. government created the middle class that made us the envy of the world.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) was the law that established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum wage and outlawed most forms of child labor.
National Recovery Act (NRA), 1933: industries set up codes to reduce unfair competition, raise wages and prices.
And many 3-letter programs that employed millions. Without job, can you home for middle class?
mengwise36 3 years ago
Throughout 1930s, the unemployment rate was double digit; GDP growth was mostly negative except for two years; American export declined for over 80% in dollar value, and 50% in physical volumn; there are estimated that 30% of the people were starving or malnutritious. "Middle class" is not for ones who have no bargaining tools in the market or earning minimum wage that needed government protection. Middle class is the ones who keep getting screw by taxation but receive no charity nor welfare.
mercedescl 3 years ago
mengwise is correct. capitalism is extremely unfair...government regulations are implemented to create a fairer society
andrew3656 3 years ago 5
Which government can create a "fairer" society without free market and poverty? Can you explain how a socialist society can be more fair than a capitalist one?
mercedescl 3 years ago
look video above
andrew3656 3 years ago 2
Stupid.
mercedescl 3 years ago
>How many people in this world do you think >really share this ideal?
Far too less, and as soon I figured out why ppl work day by day and really hate it, you'll hear me telling everyone about.
waken12 3 years ago
I can ask you the same question, have you ever worked before?
You are right about it being an ideal. However, I would argue that many inventors and artists and musician and creative people "worked" not to get "ahead" but because of their love for their "work". I would argue that if we do what we love to do, we are much more productive. It is the society that is not ready for all its citizens to do only they love.
If you take money out of the equation, why would innovation a risk?
mengwise36 3 years ago
You can't take money out of the equation because we are living in a real world. Of course, people can love their work, but they can't survive without earning some sort of income. And yes, people will be more productive if they get more satisfaction with moreworking. However, that's a logical fallacy that people who work for free and love are enough to replace the quality and quantity of those who work for money. Only fat profit margin can attract new competitors and innovators.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Like I said, communism is an ideal on a global scale. It is envisioned for a world so rich in material that people will survive even if they do nothing at all.
It is only a logical fallacy because you tried to substitute your own logic. I never said that we should all work for free NOW. I merely pointed out the fallacy of your earlier statement that no one works for free.
Capitalism leads to monopoly, the fattest margin. Monopoly stifles competition and innovation.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Max was a retard who designed a system that cannot and will not work, most important it should not work. Not everyone is equal in their labor. All marx followers are a burdon on every society.
mesofius 3 years ago
What right have you or anyone to declare one person's labour and one person's life lesser to another? That sounds like feudalism to me.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago 2
So says a retard who speaks without understanding.
mengwise36 3 years ago
Cop - out
For something that has never worked, and will never work.
AirelonTrading 3 years ago
I think it has the ability to work on a small scale. The majority of native americans (and a large number of other tribes throughout the world) had no system of ownership, but once it's applied to tens of thousands where the people are emotionally distant from their neighbour, it's just too easy to pretend other people don't matter as much as the self.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
Actually - regarding Native Americans - that's a complete myth. Julian Steward, Frederick Hodge, Frances Densmore and many others have completely destroyed the myth that there was any sort of 'communal living'. Personal ownership was extremely important.
My mothers tribe, Ahkneeyiweeyaw - you know what our name actually means: The principle people. We're the REAL people, as opposed to others.
Native Americans aren't the panacea that we are sometimes painted to be to the outside world.
soVun 3 years ago
Great point.
mengwise36 3 years ago
All humans in every nation are greedy, corruption hurts every society because people just want to be special and better than. No government system or societal structure can wipe out corruption and greed.
chumashfalcon 3 years ago
pretty interesting. such a system could work but it would take everyones cooperation. i imagine people that are taken advantage of is one problem and of course the corruption/foul play.
x11115 3 years ago
nice report, but in a few parts it's too hard to hear the reporter's voice because the singing in the background is too loud.
gwailogavin 3 years ago 3
Why is holding onto an egalitarian political system more of a hindrance than a help? You heard it from that one migrant worker herself, she'd rather have residency there than wherever she's from since the quality of life is better than many, if not most, other rural areas. I'm not saying china should back to mass collectivizations everywhere, but it works better than the current socioeconomic system in many rural, urban and suburban areas.
breaks0 3 years ago 3
You are ignorant of the intellectual base of socialism and you try to counterargue it with pragmatist reasons. Socialism is the only good way of deciding things in society, because it means non-violence and freedom of all. On the content of the video, corruption exists in socialism, because classes are based on accumulation of social and symbolic capital too, not just the economic. Communists haven't solved that and corruption is a fight against the oligarchs in symbolic capital
teemuruskeepaa 3 years ago
I'm probably more knowledgeable about chinese socialism or socialism in general than you are, but that's besides the point. I wasn't arguing that socialism eliminates corruption, I was making the very practical point (like you say) that the material quality of life in Nanjie is higher than in much (if not most) of China today. Can you really argue against equality, health care, free housing, a fair degree of popular empowerment that collectivism provides, which you have very little of today?
breaks0 3 years ago
Under market socialism that is. As to your somewhat post-structuralist/postmodern point about "symbolic capital," no I don't buy that at all. I don't find it very marxist or helpful in explaining what's going on. Does collectivization have corruption, and the party chief yes, that's inevitable under any system. But you have to keep in mind the context this village is existing in as well, let alone what exists nation-wide in China, namely this brutal form of 30 year old capitalism.
breaks0 3 years ago
Corruption undoubtedly existed in the Maoist period on, but what has emerged in the last 30 years is probably unprecedented, at least since 1949, and since 1911. Much of the cause of that yes is due to an insufficiently "democratic" form of socialism, but it's likewise due to the combination of that with the horrible exploitation you have under the Deng, Jiang and Hu regimes (the latter has not been quite as bad I suppose). Compared to that, Nanjie is a relative bastion of rural prosperity.
breaks0 3 years ago
breaks0, the tens of millions of people who died in the Cultural revolution, the denial of personal rights on a scale perhaps never equaled, that's the Maoist legacy. Maybe it works best when it's kept inside of one city.
crashkup 3 years ago
You're only partially right, mostly not. 10-40 million died in the Great Leap Famine, the worst famine we know in history. Another 5-10 million may've died in the cultural revolution. Let's throw in the Cambodian genocide and tens of millions who died in the USSR (most during WW2) as well. Shall we compare that to the hundre