Marxist Policy

The US policy towards China and Russia failed so badly because it’s Marxist in nature. Marxism is the belief that economic relations are at the root of everything. The economy is the basis, and everything else is the superstructure, i.e. an outgrowth of the economy.

The US leadership assumed that once China and Russia joined the market economy, they’d adopt the political and social structures that are the most hospitable to the markets. People will see that the material conditions of their lives are improving dramatically and will want to keep living well. So the theory went.

But Marx was wrong. He was right about some things but this central, core idea of Marxism is a mistake. Human beings easily throw away material well-being for other things. Russians don’t give a toss about the collapse of their material existence that they have experienced as a result of waging war. They are happy to sacrifice their material needs to the psychological need to feel insulted, unfairly persecuted, and misunderstood.

The economy is important but other things trump it easily. The US has delivered a deep wound to its own economy by exporting this unworkable theory and losing its manufacturing sector and its security while gaining zero friends internationally.


5 thoughts on “Marxist Policy

  1. Part of the reason for the theory as well is the relation between political freedom and economic freedom. Basically, the two are interlinked. This was one of the great things Milton Friedman pointed out. It is very difficult to have a truly socialist economy with a democratic government or a market economy with an authoritarian government. That is why pretty much all free societies have free-enterprise economies.

    For example, since taking power, Xi Xinping of China has cracked down heavily on the Chinese private sector. The CCP still acts with a lot of socialism in their economy, but allowed the development of a market economy to help build economic strength, but Xi noticed that the private economy was acting in ways that go against what he determines as China’s best interests AND what goes against the interests of the CCP itself. So in order to counter this, he’s had to restrict their freedom. This will thus restrict the dynamism of their economy.

    On the other hand, India for years operated with a socialist economy with a form of democratic government, but it isn’t a democratic government like we have in the United States. The country has still historically been very class-based, but since the introduction of free-enterprise, this has lessened somewhat, with ordinary people being able to make fortunes and thus rise into high society. Singapore has a mostly free economy I believe with a dictatorship for a government, but then they are a city-state, so that I think allows them to be an exception.

    So the belief among the Western elite was that as China’s economy became more free and prosperous, this would eventually lead to China’s CCP being dissolved. And IMO, that still might happen LONG-TERM, but in the short-term, it reminds me of a joke. The joke can be applied to either Japan or Germany but basically goes:

    “In the late 1800s, Germany/Japan began the process of converting into a liberal democracy and market economy and within only a little over 60 years, had achieved it!”

    The joke of course being there was the little side-show of World War II during that process. Similarly, China in the late 1900s began the process of converting into a market economy. If a big war breaks out sometime in the 2020s or 2030s, lots die, but then afterwards the CCP’s credibility is broken and China becomes a form of democracy, it’ll have been the same version of history. The problem is we right now are like at the stage right before WWII broke out.

    Russia never really converted to a market economy. It’s more a form of socialist economy or “state capitalism” economy with a free-enterprise component. But most of the economy is driven by export of oil/coal/natural gas. We don’t buy “Made in Russia” toys, clothes, electronics, cars, etc…


  2. No-one should ever attempt to “think for another”.
    Apparently this also applies to governments as well as to individuals.
    No-one is THAT telepathic. This kind of officiousness is annoying even on a one-on-one level, let alone a collective/macro/international one.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Things get bad when governments get into the business of social engineering. Eugenics of the soul is never a good idea. Trying to squeeze the bad out of human beings and to graft the good in its place produces monsters.


  3. “Human beings easily throw away material well-being for other things.”

    Narcissistic source, uber alles.

    (Sing it along with Jello Biafra’s song about California.)

    “Russians don’t give a toss about the collapse of their material existence that they have experienced as a result of waging war. They are happy to sacrifice their material needs to the psychological need to feel insulted, unfairly persecuted, and misunderstood.”


    Slim Shady Siloviki: “Don’t worry, the Americans, they will provide!”

    Mongol descendants: “Is it time to bitch slap the Russians again, or do we use the Americans as a proxy for that?” πŸ™‚

    Not liking this absurd Babylon 5 styled proceeding of events this week.

    “If you go to Taiwan … you will die.”

    Screw that, Taiwan was an awesome place to be a vegetarian for health reasons, I’d go again.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.