This book offers a better take on Socialism than what I've heard and read from Western socialists.
I must admit that I am not convinced of the validity or utility of their ideology. However, it seems to be gaining popularity among young adults in America. So, Socialism deserves attention.
This book summarizes the flaws of Western socialists and their utopian aims. It rejects the idea of socialism in one country as a first step toward a socialist world. Mr. Lauesen takes a page out of the capitalist manual and recognizes that socialism can not be achieved in a meaningful way unless it is hegemonic. Thankfully, Lauesen does not aim to impose Socialism on the world in the same way that capitalists imposed capitalism on the entire planet.
He also defends China as still authentically socialist. (Funny, right? From a distance China can seem like an authoritarian capitalist state like the US without the issue of many minorities gumming up its ideals of universality. But here's the thing: this is why Lauesens' take on socialism makes a bit more sense to me. This is his declaration, not my own. (I don’t personally think Capitalism has ever provided convincing evidence for its universal utility, nor do I think it needs to be productive to remain hegemonic. Inertia is more than enough to keep the current arrangement of things going for another 100 years.) For capitalism to die or any system of resource management. It must be twisted and squeezed until every product concept it can produce materializes. Lauesen claims this happened with feudalism. So China is simply using capitalism to develop the productive forces needed to make socialism possible. Socialism assumes an abundance of resources for all people to enjoy. This can't be achieved while countries are underdeveloped, because they will need different productive techniques to make global socialism possible.
Lauesen states that this process was hampered by Western colonialism and neo-colonialism. However, they will be set free because the Western world is losing its dominance over the global economy. This will give developing nations opportunities for financing and technology transfer with a more equitable and tolerant hegemon (ie, China), through institutions such as BRICS.
He states that Western nations will do nothing but hamper the process of social revolution. by continuing to demand semi- socialism in their respective countries. By coordinating with Capitalists, social democrats, and workers to keep Western resource consumption astronomically higher than the rest of the world's. Which he is right about, in my opinion. Liberalism, the basis of all Western nations' politics, has far more in common with fascism and domination than equality or fairness. If we look at the historical record rather than cheap rhetoric, Lauesen is right. He cites the genius of Domenico Losurdo in Liberalism: A Counter History. He states that the best authentic global socialists in these nations can do to help the world revolution. It is to fight and marginalize reactionary conservatism and nationalism rabidly. Specifically by blocking its imperialist or neo-imperialist adventures to further inflate its resources by entrenching global inequality. Through leveraging its military might and former wealth to weaken developing nations.
Through this process, developing nations will innovate their own local versions of socialism and how they can be used to prop up a global socialist order. At the same time, they are developing their productive forces through cooperation with the BRICS nations. To produce the abundance needed to sustain socialism on a global scale. Lauesen asserts that the rest of the world must reject dollar diplomacy and financing from Western actors, as it always comes on unbalanced terms that entrench global inequality.
Now his view on China is a bit trusting and optimistic. It is trusting because it asserts that, since the world's largest communist party still runs China. It will resist the will to power and the desire to dominate other nations when it outpaces the US. I think China ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, since its military investment is primarily aimed at defense, not global power projection, aside from its plans to integrate Taiwan. It is easy to make the mistake of universalizing the greed and despotism of Europe and the US. To then assume that China must pursue a similar path if it were to achieve comparable levels of relative power. This is uncalled for and unfair. China shares little in cultural development with European nations or those nations' offspring.
Now, what China will do if it does become and sustains itself as a global hegemon is less relevant. Than the stark reality that China faces significant headwinds if it expects to reach that status. It has a declining population, significant economic inequality, environmental degradation issues, high youth unemployment, a relatively small domestic consumer economy, and a dearth of large resource reserves it can depend on in a crisis. As China spends most of the GDP it produces each year, it leaves itself with no annual surplus for tough times or major unexpected projects. In my opinion, Lauesen should be a bit more cautious in declaring victory for China, as it may not be as unstoppable as it looks.
All that is to say that Mr. Lauesen's socialism seems a lot more sensible than what I have read and heard from contemporary Western socialists. He recognizes the limitations that a world system antithetical to socialism would impose if it were not exhausted of its utility first. He also acknowledges that even if China leads the charge towards a new system of resource management. Other nations will have to wrestle with their own local approaches to socialism to find ways that work culturally. As the Chinese claim to have done with “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”. I find this approach to socialism to be more holistic, realistic, and democratic in the sense that it does not expect China to export socialism, but encourages it globally through cooperative development followed by pragmatic implementation by each culture on its own terms.
Now Lauesen's view is still pretty pie in the sky. It predicts things that almost no person can predict with accuracy over generations. However, he breathes life into an ideology that is found to be generally exhausted and backward-looking. At least as far as Western socialist thinkers are concerned. There is less worship of the wisdom of Marx than unique ideas on how to keep socialism alive so that it can be realized in the future.
Now, just because I am not a socialist does not mean I don't have a certain admiration for them. They have the moral high ground on many matters. They seem to want an authentic and fair distribution of goods that serves all people. I don’t hear too much about the groups socialists aim to destroy. Contemporary socialists also view the world more authentically. Almost all Western news sources can not describe the world as it is, without highlighting the contradictions and brutality that are inherent in Western diplomacy. Therby drawing attention to the wests own hypocrisy and system of elaborate lies that paints the west as a bastion of hope for humanity. I also appreciate that he puts them in their place. Recognizing that they will never seize real power in their countries and will not be able to contribute to world revolution as a result. Beyond serving as a bulwark to prevent reactionary imperialism and nationalism from running rampant on the global stage, as it has for the past 400 years. It recognizes the West for what it is. A nihilistic culture that has no grand vision or useful common project for humanity. The West is only capable of recognizing itself as legitimate and others as burdens or hostile forces. Automatically framing diplomacy as antagonistic before any discourse occurs.
Cheers to Torkel Lauesen, a socialist with fresh ideas that don’t sound like a rehash of Marx and Lenin's centuries-old ideas of Eurocentric socialism.