#1,086 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy
Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 4
We found 4 Reddit mentions of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy. Here are the top ones.
or
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 8.5 Inches |
| Length | 5.5 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | March 2009 |
| Weight | 0.64 Pounds |
| Width | 0.52 Inches |
Some things to consider:
-the power dynamics between the core nations and the periphery and how institutions (IMF, World Bank, etc.) and other policies (trade agreements, intellectual property rights, installed comprador elites) from the former purposefully sabotage development of the latter for profit
-the environmental impact of consumption in the rich countries and how unsustainable it is for the future
-the world becoming "richer" seems to measured into the amount of consumer goods mostly brought about by technological development, but resources are finite and the same standard of living in the core will never come to the periphery
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
-inequality rises despite the influx of consumer goods and inequality has its own demons
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Spirit-Level-Why-Greater-Equality-Makes-Societies-Stronger-Kate-Pickett-400p_1608193411.pdf
More stuff I just happen to be engaging with now:
https://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/climate-change-limits-to-growth-and-the-imperative-for-socialism/
https://monthlyreview.org/2004/01/01/after-neoliberalism-empire-social-democracy-or-socialism/
https://www.amazon.com/China-Demise-Capitalist-World-Economy/dp/158367182X
Here's just some random books:
"Monthly review" school defenses of China:
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Hegemony-Assessing-Prospects-Multipolar/dp/1842777092
https://www.amazon.com/Reorienting-19th-Century-Economy-Continuing/dp/1612051243
https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Smith-Beijing-Lineages-Century/dp/1844672980
these are all the same book summarized here
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/china-2013/
leftist criticisms:
https://www.amazon.com/China-Demise-Capitalist-World-Economy/dp/158367182X
https://www.amazon.com/China-Socialism-Market-Reforms-Struggle/dp/1583671234
basically summarized here:
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economies%205430-6430/Hart-Landsberg-China%20and%20Transnational%20Accumulation.pdf
some important books on the cultural revolution and the conflict between Mao and Deng at a materialist level rather than in relation to personality (there are very few)
https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Economic-Development-Chris-Bramall/dp/0415373484
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2356/D_Jiang_Hongsheng_a_201005.pdf
(if you can read French it's been published as a much shorter book)
some general books on imperialism and some of the things I'm talking about
https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616
https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Twenty-First-Century-Globalization-Super-Exploitation/dp/1583675779
both of these are a bit ambiguous on China
and about Marx and the first international
https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Third-World-Umberto-Melotti/dp/0333198174
as for the USSR and Bukharin/Stalin/Trotsky representing different lines, that should be easy enough to find. The one thing we don't lack are defenses of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism.
You can see which side I'm on based on the books I recommend so don't take me for a neutral observer. If someone knows a good book defending China based on Marxism (rather than Amin and co.'s eclecticism) I welcome it. There's Losurdo of course but that doesn't really interest me since it's a defense of China in terms of Marxist thought rather than an empirical investigation. Not that it's not valuable, just that the argument should be familiar to everyone already since it has become predominant on this sub.
I read a book last year, The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, which seems likely to address this. The author is in academia, currently the University of Utah, I think, and if he's not a Maoist himself he writes from a perspective which I think could be called Maoist. I'd find a quote, but it's been too long to recall any. You can find a pdf in half a second, anyway.
As the flair shows I'm not a Maoist myself and couldn't really pretend I was for a question so complex.
>Surely you have conservative communism--preserving bureaucracy and whatnot, but it's far from right wing.
Yes. That's right wing communism.
Left wing communism is usually anarchist and seeks the total destruction of the state (e.g. Marxism).
If you don't want to call it right wing communism, don't call it communism. But it certainly is right wing.
>Nazism isn't socialism, it's fascism, an entirely different ideology.
Nazism is right wing extremist socialism. It is also fascist, correct.
Same story: If you don't want to call it right wing socialism, don't call it socialism. But it certainly is right wing.
I am confused here: First you say Stalinism is Communism... but it's the same exact issue we face with Nazism. Yet you say Nazism isn't Socialism. What is it now?
The reality is:
>Stalin was surely left-wing and a dictator
No, he was a right wing extremist. If you are an irrational dictator, you can't be left wing, can you? Doesn't do much to promote equality and abandon hierarchy and the wellbeing of society as a whole. Quite the opposite.
> (he was a Marxist, to such a degree that he supported Lysenko--a failing of Marxism, not conservatism).
You seem to be confusing Marxism and Leninism.
Stalin wasn't a Marxist. One dead giveaway is that he was a nationalist and Leninist and considered left wing communism an infantile disease. Can't be a Marxist and a Leninist. Can't be a nationalist and a Marxist. Can't be called a left winger if you consider left wing politics a disorder.
>Mao is another case of a veritably left-wing, Marxist dictator.
Can't be authoritarian or a nationalist and left wing.
How the hell do you define left and right wing (because it certainly isn't any academic definition)?
>Of course, this isn't to say that Marxism is fundamentally dictatorial, but Marxism as a metanarrative is discredited.
Marxism is fundamentally anti-authoritarian. Can't be a Marxist if you support the existence of the state.
>Its ultimate failing is that it assumes that history can be seen as a science (and theorization is rooted in positivism).
Irrelevant to the conversation, also false.
>With all due respect, you're simply inverting the views you're ascribing to right wing capitalists. This is an oversimplification and you should probe it a bit more.
No. I am simply educated about the subject and know what left and right wing mean and understand that there are left wing and right wing forms of communism and socialism.
The only oversimplification so far is yours in that you try to say that Communism = left. Which is quite simply false.
I mean, this is something that isn't even up for debate. To understand the conflict between left and right wing ideology from a more simple perspective, maybe go and read the writings of George Orwell.
___
Edit: Also, to counteract any more of the usual propaganda before it's being spammed, I will repeat the same I already attached above:
To some of the more no-think, no-knowledge rightwing users, I have to present to you a dose of reality.
What is labeled "communism" - in the context of the 3rd and 2nd world - is simply a form of economic nationalism. The communist leadership usually wanted to industrialize their way out of the former form of economic colonialism by using a form of economic autarky.
They wished to industrialize without bank loans or technical transfers from the rich nations. Unfortunately, to create the seed capital they needed, the leadership cadre usually followed a truncated version of state capitalist development.
Because it was truncated, this form of industrial development appeared to be awful in terms of human cost and environmental crises... just like it did for Western development (where it was spread out over many years).
So, if you dislike Third and Second World forms of "communism," you must dislike capitalist development in general. "Communism" is simply a variant of capitalist industrialization.
As for socialism, one cannot construct a socialist society within one nation. If a rich socialist nation is created within an unequal national system, it will simply exploit the poor nations for that nation's benefit.
I recommend this book for a more in-depth discussion of these topics.
In addition, I recommend this book for a more in-depth discussion of the structual crisis of capitalism in general. Human development has reached a stage where capitalism is rapidly collapsing for a plethora of reasons, all of which have been greatly discussed it predicted a long time ago. The question is how fast we are going to respond.
Socialism is, ideally, a form of economic democracy. Those who do the work that creates social wealth must be the people that democratically decide upon how to invest that wealth so as to better the world society for humanity, and the natural environment: flora and fauna.
In other words, no more profits before people.
To understand these topics from a more simply put philosophical perspective, I suggest reading George Orwell's books. George Orwell was a left wing extremist socialist who fervently opposed right wing authoritarianism in all its forms (especially Soviet Communism).