Embed Notice

@rasmusfleischer @Loukas

But this is already happening, at least as it comes to items 1-3. Current social and economic reality of most countries in the world includes a very broad spectrum of entities, some of them operating for profit and on private property, and some operating on non-profit basis and on public property. And in the same way, countries described as “communist” such as China (following their self-description) also have a very diverse economy, incorporating private sector, which in China outputs over 60% of the GDP (which I have actually realized when I started to analyze Chinese economy disputing their labeling as “communist” by both right-wing opponents, as well as left-wing supporters claiming “China proves success of communism”):

https://write.as/arcadian/communist-china-really

The success of countries with hybrid economy (and EU economies are already classified as “socialist” by its critics from US and UK due to large share of public sector, while ignoring the large share of private sector) is in their flexibility and ability to respond quickly to changing external environment. Private and public sector have very different characteristics and respond to different challenges. Denying either of them for ideological reasons always leads to an impaired economy.

This could be clearly seen in the Eastern Bloc in 20th century, but also in some sectors in the US, where neoliberalism is an ideological limiting factor. Here however comes yet another important difference - this ideological bias in the US is probably strongest out of Western countries, but is still a fraction of the ideology-imposed cognitive bias in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. Which is precisely why USSR has collapsed, and US has not.

Now as it comes to postulates raised by Badiou, it’s not really evident from the context to what extent he raises them as a general direction of development of humanity (in which case they are already happening), and to what as hard goals that must be not merely proposed but actually enforced.

Because this Marxist radicalism, which categorically insisted on a “violent revolution” as means of “cleansing the society” in order to then rebuild it from scratch, was exactly what Bertrand Russell described as the factor that planted the seeds of collapse in the Soviet project back in 1920’s:

https://write.as/arcadian/a-socialist-view-on-the-beginning-of-the-bolshevik-revolution

And having so far skipped Badiou’s 4th postulate, I’m a bit concerned that he might actually share that radicalism, because if “dismantling the state” is “possible”, then the logical next step would be to start “dismantling” it, which is what all revolutionaries are claiming they do.