Discussion page of Comrade:TDM

About this board

Decision regarding your political views

Forte (talkcontribs)

Hello, comrade. As you are aware, it has come to the attention of the editorship that you've recently adopted political views in stark opposition to our principles. So we thoroughly discussed the situation and ran a vote to collectively decide what to do in your situation.

We wanted to thank you for your work in the project, and for your consistent contributions since August 2022 in various topics. Your edits have contributed to expanding the knowledge of the encyclopedia and we recognize your efforts in that respect. The result of the voting (12 against 4, few abstentions) showed that the majority of editors thought it was best that you no longer be involved in the project, at least until you are aligned with the political line of the project again. However, we will be preserving your rights to use your talk page as a way to maintain an open line of communication with us. We are ready to welcome you if you ever change your mind in the future.

The reasoning behind this is that our principles are what makes our encyclopedia consistent and coherent. We accept criticism of our principles, provided there's a coherent line of reasoning behind the criticism, but no attempt was made at it. You can still do it in this talk page, if you prefer to do so, if you believe we are deserving of criticism for our principles, though you should be ready to be criticized back. We thought it would be better for you to leave for now in good terms than to let you stay at the risk of causing you frustrations and developing personal rifts.

Again, we thank you for the work you've spent with us, and since you've never been publicly belligerent against us or attacked us, we reiterate that you're welcome to return to the editorship if your theoretical stance happens to realigned with the project again. In case you feel our project has wronged you in any way, or if there was something we could've done for you, please tell us so.

Thank you, comrade.

Editors of ProleWiki

Reply to "Decision regarding your political views"

Concerns about your political positions among editors

Forte (talkcontribs)

It has come to the attention of some editors that you are now defending the position that China is a "social-imperialist" country, among other erroneous views, basing yourself on a Hoxhaist line.

Given that this position is against the line of ProleWiki, we wanted to hear from you how this affects your relationship with us, and if you are ready to face criticism against your views and defend your position.

If you are not able to stand in the face of criticism, this will potentially oblige us to remove you from the editorship. So this is your opportunity to defend your views.

TDM (talkcontribs)

You can ban me from editing if you want, I don't really care but I wasn't planning on breaking site rules anyway. I apologize.

GojiraTheWumao (talkcontribs)

You (TDM) appeared to cite this article on your twitter page as a critique of Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up:

My question to you is, did you actually read the study cited by the article? Because, even in the opening abstract of the article, it says this:

Here is a business insider link discussing the same study, with table's comparing GDP growth between whether Mao's economic policies returned in 2012 - 2050, compared to the continued process/procedure of Deng's Reform and Opening Up:

It clearly states that if China returned to Mao's economic policies, this would be the result: 2012 - 2024 GDP growth: 5.0% 2024 - 2036 GDP growth: 4.6% 2036 - 2050 GDP growth: 3.9%

Inversely, if China persists on the same "Dengist path", this would be the result: 2012 - 2024 GDP growth: 7.8% 2024 - 2036 GDP growth: 5.3% 2036 - 2050 GDP growth: 3.6%

2012 - 2024, Dengist growth is 2.8% faster than Maoist growth. 2024 to 2036, Dengist growth is 0.7% faster than Maoist growth. 2036 to 2050, Maoist growth is 0.3% faster than Dengist growth.

Now onto the actual study,THE ECONOMY OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA FROM 1953 by Anton Cheremukhin, Mikhail Golosov, Sergei Guriev and Aleh Tsyvinski

In the opening abstract it openly states Deng Xiaoping's reforms increased GDP growth by 4.2% compared to previously and 23.9% less people working in agriculture,

"Third, we use the pre-reform period as a key benchmark to measure the success of the post-1978 reforms. We show that reforms yielded a significant growth and structural transformation differential. GDP growth is 4.2 percentage points higher and the share of the labor force in agriculture is 23.9 percentage points lower compared with the continuation of the pre-1978 policies."

If you are unsatisified with the business insider quotes, I can give you the pages of the article, if you use google chrome's page counting system for loading the PDF, the source is 60 - 63 (at the top of the PDF in the grey bar above the actual contnent). If you use the PDF's written page (The numbers on the webpages of the PDF itself), it is 58 - 61.

Here is the quote:

Our post-1978 trend projection implies a stable share of investment in GDP at 40 percent. The movement of labor from agriculture to other sectors will continue, with the share of labor force in agriculture declining from 37 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2050. The share of value added by the agricultural sector will reach 2 percent in 2050 from 6 percent currently. The level of GDP per capita will approach that of the US by 2040 when China is likely to become a developed country. However, if the economy behaves similarly to what it did under the post-GFL trends, it would grow slower, and the movement of labor out of agriculture would stop.

Note, "if the economy behaves similarly to what it did under post GFL, it would GROW SLOWER, and the MOVEMENT OF LABOUR OUT OF AGRICULTURE WOULD STOP." The article itself even says that China's growth would grow faster using post 1978 reform policies in comparison if China continued using post GLF Maoist economic policies.

Here is my source, it is linked in the Telesur article. Here is the NBER link with the abstract unpaywalled:

If you cannot download it, here is the Anna's Archive link where you can download the study and read for yourself:

If you wish to cherry pick the argument that Maoist economic policies would allow China to grow 0.3% faster compared to Dengist economic policies from 2036 - 2050. It still says China would become on par with American level's of economic development by 2040. And that industrialization/shift away from agriculture would actually stagnate and stop entirely.

Also,the reason why “2036 - 2050" growth would be slightly faster (by 0.3%) is because they have more room to grow from in the first place, growth is faster because china hasn't industrialized / developed as much.To use the analogy of climbing a tree with less and less fruit the higher you go, they still have middling and low level fruits to pluck And don't need to climb to the highest parts of the tree to pluck the fruits, which are scarcer and scarcer the higher you go.

And, anywho, China's economic policy is actually adapting/shifting away from it's previous economic policy which predominated from the 1990s all the way to 2022. The movement away from funding the "State as a landlord" style of development and moving away from the Real Estate sector to provide an alternative means of local governments aquiring funds. As well as funding/pushing more bank credit to industry over property development.

Also, the same people you cite, which is Anton Cheremukhin, Mikhail Golosov, Sergei Guriev and Aleh Tsyvinski who wrote this study WAS STALIN NECESSARY FOR RUSSIA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?, this is what the article had to say about Stalin and I quote,


"We started this paper with a question: “Was Stalin necessary for Russia’s economic development?” In short, our answer is a definitive “no.” A Tsarist economy, even in our conservative version assuming that it would not experience any decline in frictions, would have achieved a rather similar structure of the economy and levels of production as Stalin’s economy by 1940. The short-run (1928-1940) costs of Stalin’s policies are very significant for an economy in a peaceful period. Our comparison with Japan leads to astonishingly larger welfare costs of Stalin’s policies."

So, why are you, a Hoxhaist citing an article by people that claim Stalin's economic policies were not necessary for Russia's economic development and a Tsarist Russia would have remained a similar structure and level of production? These people claim Deng's reforms increased GDP by 4.2% more relative to Mao era GDP growth. While claiming Tsarist Russia would have reached a similar level of economic growth without Stalin's economic policies, and in fact Stalin's policies damaged the Russian economy?

TDM (talkcontribs)

I was expecting to catch slack for this sooner or later from here. If it's best to take away my editorship, then so be it, I won't complain. I don't know how to respond to your questions about the article, I apologize.

Reply to "Concerns about your political positions among editors"

Your recent changes to the Third International Theory Page

RedCustodian (talkcontribs)

= Dave, i have to question some of the changes you made to this page. It seems to me that you've simply put in quotations from the Green Book without putting sufficient clarifications that it is a Utopian ideology.

This post was hidden by TDM (history)
This post was hidden by TDM (history)
TDM (talkcontribs)


Then make the edits you need to make. I don't even understand what you're asking

There are no older topics