/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(23.67 KB 973x819 china.png)
(936.83 KB 2000x1334 1552407442809.jpg)
/prc/ - People's Republic of China general Comrade 08/05/2019 (Mon) 12:39:50 No. 8925
A general thread for all China related discussion
>>889112 because they go boom in your imagination, not literally boom you spooky retard
>>890392 India superpower 2060
>>890392 So lower stage socialism by 2050
>baizuo!!! what did they mean by this?
>>890244 It reminds me of old Soviet cartoons actually.
>>890625 Literally "white left". A derogatory term in Chinese internet to refer to self-proclaimed leftists who only care about idpol and virtue-signalling, especially certain you-know-whos in the West. It's unclear whether the color refers to the complexion of the noble Hwite liberals (before they became the new Republicans these past few years) or whether it's an insult for not being red. Possibly both.
>>888888 Holy based
>>888888 https://archive.is/bhxRL Another archive link so the séething Dengoids can't make up a cope of "i-it's just a photoshop!" later when the thread cycles.
>>890637 I heard it was coined by Chinese right wingers, not leftists, and it's a play on words that roughly means leftard.
Next bullshit story that they made up. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-tibet-exclusive-idUSKCN26D0GT Of course, brought to you by the man himself, Adrian Zenz. Of course I expect it to be posted here unironically to "own the Dengoids" eventually.
>>890752 tbh unemployment and months-long isolation makes Chinese labor camps more appealing to me every day
>>886043 To rephrase Lenin, he quite explicitly said that even though a socialist mode of production did not exclusively exist in the USSR, it was a socialist state and should be defended as such, as in, that it lays the foundations for socialism. This has always been the line most communists adhered to since the last hundred years. What China does is not anything different, they call it the preliminary stage of socialism. As the decisive qualifying metric, Lenin names the question of land and the control over the key industries: <Therefore, the most important thing for us was to lay the economic foundation for socialist economy. We could not do it directly. We had to do it in a roundabout way. The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind. It does not agree with the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions. We hold the land; it belongs to the state. This is very important, although our opponents try to make out that it is of no importance at all. That is untrue. The fact that the land belongs to the state is extremely important, and economically it is also of great practical purport. This we have achieved, and I must say that all our future activities should develop only within that framework. We have already succeeded in making the peasantry content and in reviving both industry and trade. I have already said that our state capitalism differs from state capitalism in the literal sense of the term in that our proletarian state not only owns the land, but also all the vital branches of industry. To begin with, we have leased only a certain number of the small and medium plants, but all the rest remain in our hands. As regards trade, I want to re-emphasise that we are trying to found mixed companies, that we are already forming them, i.e., companies in which part of the capital belongs to private capitalists—and foreign capitalists at that—and the other part belongs to the state. Firstly, in this way we are learning how to trade, and that is what we need. Secondly, we are always in a position to dissolve these companies if we deem it necessary, and do not, therefore, run any risks, so to speak. We are learning from the private capitalist and looking round to see how we can progress, and what mistakes we make. It seems to me that I need say no more. China has socialized land and controls the key industries. Lenin about state-capitalism earlier in his lecture: <Thus, in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then obtaihing in the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for already at that time our Republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily—perhaps too hastily—adopting various new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures. Nevertheless, I then held the view that in relation to the economic situation then obtaining in the Soviet Republic state capitalism would be a step forward, and I explained my idea simply by enumerating the elements of the economic system of Russia. In my opinion these elements were the following: “(1) patriarchal, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture; (2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of the peasants who trade in grain); (3) private capitalism; (4) state capitalism, and (5) socialism.” All these economic elements were present in Russia at that time. I set myself the task of explaining the relationship of these elements to each other, and whether one of the non-socialist elements, namely, state capitalism, should not be rated higher than socialism. I repeat: it seems very strange to everyone that a non-socialist element should be rated higher than, regarded as superior to, socialism in a republic which declares itself a socialist republic. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm Lenin explicitly calls the USSR a socialist republic, fully aware that different modes of production exist in Russia side by side. Online you'll see a lot of people inventing things like "Dengism" or engage in persnicketiness to find the decisive metric which allows them to make a sweeping claim that China "isn't socialist". Vladimiro Giacché, pupil of Domenico Losurdo, in his booklet State and Market in Contemporary China observed the following qualification for modern China: 1.) Property isn't fully socialized (but socialized property dominates); 2.) Wage labor was not abolished (but can not be fully grasped as wage labor in some enterprises forms where "remuneration according to quantity of labor" dominates); 3.) Neither commodity production nor money were abolished; 4.) The originally "basic" and now "decisive" rule of the market in terms of resource allocation exists parallel to a large system of regulation and planning; 5.) Distribution according to quantity of labor done is constitutionally enshrined but exists parallel to other forms of distribution as a consequence of different relations of production The key aspect, or as Engels called it, the "sore spot", is question of centralization of political power in the last instance, which lies staunchly in the hands of a proletarian state with Marxist-Leninist ruling party.
>>890774 >Property isn't fully socialized (but socialized property dominates); In what universe? The private cpitalist sector has 60% of GDP share, 50% of tax revenue, 80% of urban employment, and it's not like thd public sector isn't involved in international commodity production as well (Sinopec and friends). Leasing urban land for 99 years isn't "socialized", and a lot of the farmland was de-collectivized. This is a preposterous claim. >2.) Wage labor was not abolished (but can not be fully grasped as wage labor in some enterprises forms where "remuneration according to quantity of labor" dominates); Hourly work/piece work firmly exists under capitalism as well, this doesn't mean anything as long as the surplus product is usurped by bourgeois. >3.) Neither commodity production nor money were abolished And they have no plans to abolish it. Maybe after 2078? >4.) The originally "basic" and now "decisive" rule of the market in terms of resource allocation exists parallel to a large system of regulation and planning; If you bother to read their five-year plans, it is no different than bourgeois parties forming policy plans. They firmly have a "socialist (sic) market economy" in place and even say so. Regulation of markets exists in every single capitalist nation on Earth, ancap is a fantasy. The fact that thd CPC formulates longer-term strategies is advantageous against short-sighted liberal capitalists, but it is still undeniable how much they are subject to market forces. You are using Lenin to justify bourgeois trickle-down economics with a medium-large but not dominant state capitalist sector. Even states like Norway or Saudi-Arabia have a larger state sector if this is your criterium for socialism. You are furthermore comparing a 10-year NEP after two devastaing wars in semi-feudal state to 70 (!!!) years of "NEP" in China [1980 - 2050]. There was a reason Stalin didn't let NEPmen and kulaks into the party, or why he didn't keep it running forever. Think about what a 70 year "NEP" means. Lmao at acting like they have labor value calculations.
>>890797 >1980 - 2050 That latter date got extended — it's 2078 now. So, basically a hundred years of "NEP".
>>890872 >That latter date got extended — it's 2078 now When?
>>890883 2078 is when they will have "intermediate socialism", whatever that means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiMk1FzlCg >Live: Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks at UNGA's General Debate Going live in a few minutes
>>890872 >>884835 >>890797 >Neither commodity production nor money were abolished USSR never did that either All of you are impure None of you are free from sin
>>890892 Never claimed they did. Still, the USSR did not have 60% private industry, or 30% of the world's billionaire population, or market forces guiding over planning mechanisms, or private banks and interests, or landlords, or...
>>890892 Didn't the USSR abolish the money form, so that money pretty much only had an accounting purpose?
SUCCDEM BY 2050 WAR COMMUNISM BY 2078 ANOTHER 100 YEAR NEP BY 2178 FIRST POST-NEP TRANSITION BY 2200 LOWER-STAGE SOCIALISM BY 2222 INTERMEDIATE SOCIALISM BY 2265 HIGHER-STAGE SOCIALISM BY 2312
>>890901 Maybe
>>890908 IN THE YEAR 2525 IF CHINA'S STILL ALIVE IF PORKY CAN SURVIVE THEY MAY FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND
>>890929 Now it's been 10,000 years Workers cried a billion tears For what he never knew Finally, porky's reign is through But through eternal night The explosion of starlight So very far away Man was alive only yesterday
(58.08 KB 720x540 0.jpg)
>>890886 >2078 is when they will have "intermediate socialism" <Dengoids will still defend this
>>890918 General debate starting now which means President Xi Jinping will be speaking soon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiMk1FzlCg
>>890935 The falling rate of profit Down it went Capitalism will have an end Workers rule is the conclusion Despite much bourgeois confusion
>>890752 >Zenz is a born-again Christian. He stated that he feels "led by God" in his research on Chinese minority groups. My food is trying to come back up
>>890929 >>890935 >>890948 Give a hint when I could cap this.
>>890797 >In what universe? The private cpitalist sector has 60% of GDP share, 50% of tax revenue, 80% of urban employment, and it's not like thd public sector isn't involved in international commodity production as well (Sinopec and friends). Leasing urban land for 99 years isn't "socialized", and a lot of the farmland was de-collectivized. This is a preposterous claim. lol, you act as if you have a monopoly on the 100% correct statistics whereas every paper compiled by bourgeois economists often come to varying conclusions. Workforce employed by the public sector for example is estimated between 30% and 70% depending on who you ask. And my personal suspicision is that ideological bias plays a role too depending on whether the author wants to portray China as a "communist dictatorship" or "more capitalist than the West". GDP is also only of limited utility for us as, for example, the service sector is vastly private but it tells you nothing about what industries are actually under public control and the political power that comes with it. For example, 2/3 of all enterprises in China are private (POE), but 3/4 of all industry is capitalized by the state. This remarkably distorts the actual numbers to the point where - applying bourgeois economics - it becomes harder to actually give a definite number on the public sector. One point of contention for example is the classification of township and village enterprises (TVE) which are run by rural collectives but often register as private enterprises. They're still dominating China's countryside - what was decollectived were Mao's communes which didn't work but the actual collectives still continued to exist with the introduction of Deng's household responsibility system. Those farms are increasingly organized as collective farms: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1004505/how-village-co-ops-are-remapping-chinas-rural-communities Leased land doesn't change the ownership (= political power). Whether or not damage is caused by the lessee or by the owner makes a difference, in terms of land we are talking environmental destruction here. My numbers are taken from here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227388773_Demystifying_the_Chinese_Economy >Hourly work/piece work firmly exists under capitalism as well, this doesn't mean anything as long as the surplus product is usurped by bourgeois I guess you mean surplus value. There is no bourgeois in the state sector, unless you consider bureaucrats to be capitalists. I especially said for a reason that exploitation exists in China, and that only in some state enterprises we have a different mode of distribution. Where different relations of production exist different modes of distribution will also emerge. This is basic Marxism. >And they have no plans to abolish it. Maybe after 2078? Ding Xiaoqing writes: <It is another picture in China, where the market currently plays a more important role and a fundamental one in resource allocation after the reform and global opening-up. However, the planning dimension is not missing. It is the backbone of macroeconomic regulation, which is stronger than that in any capitalist nation. With the opening up we have moved from dominant planned regulation and a 'planned commodity economy' to a 'socialist market economy.' No one mix of the market and planning is correct for all times and situations; it all depends on concrete economic and global conditions. Economic and technological conditions may not exist to permit the implementation of a totally planned economy, abolishing the production and circulation of commodities. But the market economy has its inherent deficiency and it is mistaken to idealize or absolutize it. When the conditions for abolishing the relations of commodity and money and implementing a totally planned economy arise, this will happen in an inevitable historical process. Those cenentary goals are not really saying anything about the mode of production, but considering that the market would probably have "played itself out" by then it's reasonable that economic change follows, I assume growth grates will slow down anyway. >If you bother to read their five-year plans, it is no different than bourgeois parties forming policy plans. They firmly have a "socialist (sic) market economy" in place and even say so. Regulation of markets exists in every single capitalist nation on Earth, ancap is a fantasy. The fact that thd CPC formulates longer-term strategies is advantageous against short-sighted liberal capitalists, but it is still undeniable how much they are subject to market forces. I would go one step further (and may probably sound heretic to some) but socialist planning is actually an outgrowth of capitalism planning (that seems to have been Lenin's view as well) the difference is the actual manifestation of political power (what class rules over the others?) which of course needs economic safeguards such as the questions of who owns the key industries, who owns the soil, etc. - and no, the Chinese model of economic planning is not the same as planned state monopoly capitalism with the centrally planned entangled monopolies entirely dependent on super profits and a ridiculous financialization on top which is the model we find in Europe, North America and Japan. The embryo for socialist economic planning is already there but the economy is entirely controlled by monopolies. Just compare China's coronavirus response to the response in countries under state monopoly capitalism. In reality, the Chinese state enterprises serve as the bloated belly of the economy, they are massively indebted and "soak up" the contradictions stemming from the market system and the private sector. That they're - in the last instance - not determined by profitability brings them into contradiction with their Western trading partners, the EU has openly declared that they won't agree to the trade agreement they've been trying to get since decades as long as SOEs do not adhere to the profit motive and "free" market competition. See here: https://app.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/handelsgespraeche-eu-greift-chinas-staatswirtschaft-an/25818712.html Take it straight from the mouthpiece of the German bourgeoisie. Those are exactly the "tyrannic inroads" Marx advocated for the transitional stage. >You are using Lenin to justify bourgeois trickle-down economics with a medium-large but not dominant state capitalist sector. Even states like Norway or Saudi-Arabia have a larger state sector if this is your criterium for socialism. You know very well that they're entirely dependent on oil to be like this, also, I'd like this sourced. Do you think a country that has no economy but literal nomads but pays itself off with oil is comparable to an actual diverse economy like the Chinese? >You are furthermore comparing a 10-year NEP after two devastaing wars in semi-feudal state to 70 (!!!) years of "NEP" in China [1980 - 2050]. There was a reason Stalin didn't let NEPmen and kulaks into the party, or why he didn't keep it running forever. Think about what a 70 year "NEP" means. The preliminary stage of socialism isn't the same as the NEP, correct. The industry is already built up, but China is still a middle income country. My point is that what they're doing isn't some crazy revisionist blasphemic betrayal of Marxism. The bourgeoisie is not in power in China and won't be in the foreseeable future. >Lmao at acting like they have labor value calculations When did I say that?
>>890942 Yeah I remember when Xi China went around bullying other countries like the African ones Can't believe he wiped their debt during a pandemic Fucking tyrant
>>890964 I am amazed by the amount of mental gymnastics you need to simply ignore that the capitalist base will inevitably create a capitalist superstructure sooner or later.
>>888888 HOES MAD SAID MAO IN HEAVEN
>>890975 >Gives loans <Partial debt forgiveness Dengoids love to solve problems they created in the first place.
>>890981 Yes China gives loans and builds infrastructure Despite doing this they still don't make a majority of African countries debt
>>890975 Western nations "forgive" debts too dummy.
>>888888 Holy based
>>890987 I seem to have missed that, what western countries like the US, France and the UK forgave debt during the pandemic?
>>890991 What the fuck do you mean move the goal post What the fuck do you think I was talking about when I said China forgave African countries debt during the pandemic you fucking retard
>>891000 China isn't special for forgiving debt. Western countries do it all the time and they did it just a few months ago.
>>891006 China isn't special for forgiving debt sure China is special for not being like capitalist countires like the US who puts profit before people and will make the vaccine a global
(98.25 KB 660x440 SuicideProofNets.jpg)
>>891027 >China is special for not being like capitalist countires like the US who puts profit before people
>>891059 The profit motive doesn't count when a country with a red flag does it! Hail Deng.
>>891059 Not to detract from the point but Foxconn is Taiwanese.
>>891073 >United Fruit Company is American so Batista did nothing wrong The factory was/is in Shenzhen.
>>891059 >posting retarded debunked memes let me guess youll post about ghost cities and collapsed buildings next
(262.77 KB 960x1500 15390.jpeg)
>>891059 I love how you retards will always use this, but watch this Those things aren't even widespread throughout China nor can you prove that they're even still there
>>890977 If there is an attempt at counterrevolution, I'm sure the CPC won't go without a fight.
>>891097 That depends whose statistics you believe. WHO says roughly 110,000 Chinese suicide per year, CDC says 287,000. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.MHSUICIDEv http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-09/08/content_13651610.htm
>>890981 >USSR gives loan, forgives it later <based internationalism, helping socialist countries and developing countries!!!! >China gives loan, forgives it later <dengoid imperialism reeeeeee What's the next talking point? That fucking port in Sri Lanka?
>>891097 woah, based chinese and pakistani gender equality
>>890977 >I am amazed by the amount of mental gymnastics you need to simply ignore that the capitalist base will inevitably create a capitalist superstructure sooner or later. >>891113 >If there is an attempt at counterrevolution, I'm sure the CPC won't go without a fight. Party and state system in China will win the internal power struggle. Private sector creates a money aristocracy, private monopolies,... excluding the rest of society, no new blood or new ideas can enter the private ruler club with stagnant character. CPC party system remains open to the rest of society, joining the party has low socioeconomic barrier to entry, with a meritocracy ladder, new ideas and new blood either succeed upwards of fail downwards. A bourgeois dictatorship is prevented socialism is possible, not certain.
Carrie Lam tells parents of murdered teen to ‘get over it’ https://hk.appledaily.com/news/20200922/36LLJSI6UFDXJECOQO274B5A4I/
(45.35 KB 899x506 zC3bWh5d.jpg)
(215.95 KB 1024x1365 4383fw.jpg)
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/22/asia/china-ren-zhiqiang-xi-jinping-intl-hnk/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_content=2020-09-22T12%3A15%3A05 Chinese tycoon who criticized Xi Jinping's handling of coronavirus jailed for 18 years >Beijing (CNN Business)A Chinese billionaire who criticized President Xi Jinping's handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been jailed for 18 years on corruption charges, a court said Tuesday. >Ren Zhiqiang, a retired real-estate tycoon with close ties to senior Chinese officials, disappeared in March after he allegedly penned a scathing essay that month criticizing Xi's response to the coronavirus epidemic. He was later charged with corruption-related offenses. >On Tuesday, a court in Beijing found Ren guilty on multiple charges, including embezzling some $16.3 million (110.6 million yuan) in public funds, accepting bribes, and abuse of power that caused losses totaling $17.2 million (116.7 million yuan) for the state-owned property company that he once headed. >Judges sentenced him to 18 years in prison and imposed a fine of $620,000 (4.2 million yuan). The court said he "voluntarily confessed all of his crimes" and "was willing to accept the court's verdict after all of his illegal gains were recovered." >China's court system has a conviction rate of around 99%, according to legal observers, and corruption charges are often used to go after Communist Party insiders who fall afoul of the leadership. >Ren's conviction and heavy sentence appears designed to send a message to other members of the Chinese elite that any public criticism or defiance of Xi will not be tolerated, as Beijing continues to deal with the fallout of the pandemic and faces intense international pressure from Washington and others. 'The Cannon' >Born into the Communist Party's ruling elite, the 69-year-old Ren had often been outspoken on Chinese politics, far more than is usually allowed in the authoritarian state. >His forthrightness earned him the nickname "The Cannon" on Chinese social media. >In the essay published in March, widely attributed to Ren, the author lashed out at the party's crackdown on press freedom and intolerance of dissent. While the essay did not mention Xi by name, it obliquely referred to the country's top leader as a power-hungry "clown." >"I saw not an emperor standing there exhibiting his 'new clothes,' but a clown who stripped off his clothes and insisted on continuing being an emperor," Ren allegedly wrote of Xi's address to 170,000 officials across the country at a mass video conference on epidemic control measures on February 23. >The essay went on to accuse the Communist Party of putting its own interests above the safety of the Chinese people, to secure its rule. >"Without a media representing the interests of the people by publishing the actual facts, the people's lives are being ravaged by both the virus and the major illness of the system," Ren allegedly wrote. >Soon after the essay was published online, Ren disappeared, and relatives feared he had been detained. Authorities confirmed Ren was being investigated on corruption related charges in early April, and expelled the longtime member from the Communist Party in July, paving the way for his criminal prosecution. >This is not the first time Ren ran afoul of the Chinese leadership for speaking his mind. >In 2016, he was disciplined after questioning on social media Xi's demands that Chinese state media must stay absolutely loyal to the party. He was put on a year's probation for his party membership and his wildly popular account on Weibo, China's Twitter-like platform, was shuttered. >This time, however, there appears to be no second chance for Ren. If he serves his full sentence, he will be in his late 80s by the time he is released.
>>891761 >Apple Daily Bruh
>>891097 Why are the suicide rates in Greece so low? Isn't the economic situation in Greece horrible right now?
>>888888 Bullshit faggot. Untrue. Depressions barely hit China (2008 for example). China has an actual material economy and will find a way out of it.
>>891790 Based Xi
>>891790 >China's court system has a conviction rate of around 99% I'd venture to guess that that number is the same as the US's for the same bullshit reasons.
>>892011 IIRC the US's system has 94% go to plea deals. The conviction rate is not as high, but legislation following from catastrophizing about muh superpredators and democrats trying to prove that they're the tough-on-crime party has given prosecutors 30-years-to-life penalties to leverage in plea deal negotiations with defendants.
>>892021 >IIRC the US's system has 94% go to plea deals. The conviction rate is not as high Plea deals get a conviction though. That's the whole point.
>>892027 Right; sorry, I meant conviction rate of cases that go to trial. From the perspective of the prosecutor, yes that's the point. From the perspective of dispelling the notion that one is convicted by a jury of one's peers in a fair trial, the plea deal system substantially undermines the doctrine of the american civil religion.
>>891954 The systematic faults of China are a bit different from those of Western economies -- like the Soviet Union, it found a way to weather minor recessions however will ultimately collapse in the end because of a fundamental flaw. In the case of China it's being reliant on capitalism.
>>892045 cool thesis bro. where can i read your dissertation?
>>892048 No answer? Witty comebacks only? Well you certainly are prepared for this discussion.
(40.63 KB 736x642 Dvfb8RaVAAElTh4.jpg)
>>892059 Dude, you haven't said anything. You literally just jumped in the thread to go: >Ackchyually, China is capitalist! How the fuck is anyone supposed to work with that?
>>892125 Premise: China's economy, though regulated, is ultimately capitalist and is dependent on such forces. Since capitalism will eventually collapse, so will China because its economy is capitalist Your response: (Why you think this is wrong; either by responding why China's economy is not capitalist or why China will not collapse)
>>892125 Because it's fucking obvious? Even the CCP thinks it's capitalist.
>>890722 It's my understanding it originates from Auntologists who are like Chinese alt-righters, yeah, except on the extreme bottom-right of the four-quadrant political chart, they also think China should be destroyed and split up into multiple countries and the main guy doesn't even live in China, but America. He coined the term, I think, which then leaped to /pol/ and is taken there to flatter their own derogatory opinions about the left because all Chinese people apparently agree with them or something.
>>892146 >>892142 No one has ever denied the private sector plays a large role in China. The question is why you feel the need everyday to state your pointless, unread opinions unprompted?
(488.95 KB 1600x1085 DhFBq0DVQAA4t3B.jpg)
>>892162 Not just China, but it looks like they want the whole world balkanized.
>>892176 We're having a discussion, as we do continuously about the nature of the Chinese economy and its fate. So far you haven't addressed the points I made. Here the setup is again: >>892142
>>892178 That's actually exactly the level of thinking I expected.
>>892177 Why does Sindh have a Nazbol flag?
>>892177 >1 China policy <Small brain >2 China policy <Medium brain >30 China solution <Enlightened brain
>>892187 I know you believe China is capitalist, I don't know what you expect me to do about that. Read this I guess.
>>892176 Because you faggots try to portray china as socialist all over the forum
>>892146 No the CPC uses the term socialist market economy. They deny being capitalist.
(81.98 KB 658x825 fidel.jpg)
>>888888 DENGOIDS DESTROYED DENGOIDS DESTROYED DENGOIDS DESTROYED
China says it will cut its carbon dioxide emissions to nearly zero by 2060 https://twitter.com/financialtimes/status/1308488773571956737
>>892248 Really not sure how they'd pull this off, but fingers crossed, I guess. >>892234 >China is socialist <Nuh uh! >Yuh huh! Ugh. Why are China threads on this site so fucking awful. I swear they always just devolves into rooting for sports teams.
>>892281 >Really not sure how they'd pull this off Bruh, nearly-zero by 2060 is not even that ambitious
>>892286 > Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/730e4f7d-3df0-45e4-91a5-db4b3571f353 >said Li Shuo, an energy policy officer at Greenpeace in Beijing. >“We would need to completely transform every single aspect of our economy and our life in this country [to meet the target].” I wouldn't say it's not ambitious. Still, like the article says, they're continuing to invest in coal plants in the near-term. I'm really not sure how that's going to square up with their long-term goals.
>>892315 Aw, fuck. I fucked up my fucking post. Well, you get the idea.
>>892248 2060? It will be too late by then, they will have to be net negative at that point at least for a while.
>>892248 Breaking: China says it will make the ocean into lemonade by 2070 https://propaganda.prc.cn/breaking-news-93275985634959435/
>>892315 >Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. Now you done fucked up.
>>892344 It's really gonna take till your election is over for this board to become usable again, you fucking monkey.
>>891790 >fidel.jpg ironically Castro praised XI Jinping as a true socialist >>892315 >they're continuing to invest in coal plants in the near-term. I'm really not sure how that's going to square up with their long-term goals. They plan to upgrade existing power plants and replace the coal boilers with nuclear boiler conversion modules. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/coal-to-nuclear-conversion-can-rapidly.html
You are have summoned the ghost of Karl Marx. He is discussing current events and politics with you. You listen intently. "The bourgeoisie has been betrayed by its own class, the petty bourgeois." He goes on to explain that capitalism is a system based around profit making for the few at the expense of everyone else. > You say "What should be done?" "I think we need to start over from scratch. We need to get rid of the government entirely and create a new society based on free association between all people." > You ask him about the next big step. "The working class has no alternative but to take power into its own hands and create a new society. We have to destroy the old order, not just replace it." > You say "How do we do that?" "The first step is to destroy the state and end the rule of law. Only after that will we be able to put our plans into action." "Destroy the state? Sounds dangerous. > You question whether such a thing is even possible. "It is possible. It must be done. Nothing less will do." You spend some time with the ghost of Karl Marx discussing the best way to bring this about. > You say "What would help you most?" "A revolution of the minds as well as the bodies." "The minds? > You say "What do you mean?" "We have to change the way people think and spread the message of freedom. Only then will they be free to live and let live, and that's what we want, right?" > You say "Was Stalin based" "On Marx, yes. He was a devoted man." > You say "China is socialist, yes?" "Yes, but it is not a communist country. That would be a return to the old order, and we can't have that." You spend some more time with the ghost of Karl Marx before leaving the castle.
>>892484 from ai dungeon
>>888888 you spout meaningless tautology with no basis in reality or even the theory you claim guides you. China will collapse by 2050??? Bet ( more like the u.s will) HAHAHAHAHAHAH STUPID WESTERNER
>>892719 That doesn't really contradict itself, both are possible.
>>892722 meaningless assertions with no material basis, you will never understood why Deng is the greatest economist in the history of the world.. WESTERN ANIMAL
>>892349 The leadership doesn't have to care, they'll all be dead by the time they'll have to deliver on their promises.
>>892220 >If we analyse the first 15 years of Soviet Russia, we see three social experiments. The first experiment, based on the equal distribution of poverty, suggests the “universal asceticism” and “rough egalitarianism” criticised by the Communist Manifesto. Nigga, what? War communism had NOTHING to do with making everyone equally poor. This argument comes straight out of right-wing rhetoric about what they think communists want. The Soviet Union wasn't poor at that time because "they forced people to share" or whatever, but because it inherited a semi-feudal backwater that got ripped up in two back-to-back wars. Are dengists even reading the same history as the rest of us?
>>892801 Losurdo is actually a "Neo-Stalinist" not a Dengist, get your insults right. Also if you could read past the abstract.
I see a lot of China supporters claim that the Tiananmen Square massacre never happened. Can you explain these images please? http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html
>>893523 >I see a lot of China supporters claim Really? Like whom? Absolutely nobody claims that. What people claim is that China did various degrees of "nothing wrong", and pictures with ded people don't in any way contradict it.
>>893526 Why did they do nothing wrong then?
>>893479 His particular tendency doesn't really matter, it's plain what he said. Is it even worth reading the rest if the abstract has this much bias and historical inaccuracy in it?
>>893527 What do you think?
>>893560 this is disturbing and I don't understand the context of this
>>893523 Tank Man was actually a Dengoid who STOPPED the tanks from leaving the square. He pressured the tanks to return to the square and finish their business of liquidating cringe ultraleftists.
Why isn't China making moves while the US is in this state of chaos?
>>893563 PRC cops fucked up by underestimating the libs and got lynched. Their first wave didn’t even have proper riot gear which was retarded. >>893697 They’re literally interconnected by their shared capitalist overlords. Stop coping and start organizing. Your heaven on earth of communism only comes from your own revolutionary efforts.
>>893709 >Stop coping and start organizing Exactly this. People need to stop thinking that the burden of revolution doesn't fall on them and that instead China will just bail them out. We're not Trumptards, we're responsible for our own successes instead of just hoping the government will do us well. For anyone who hasn't joined a party/union yet, you can start by looking up "Socialist party + (your town)". This page has some more information: https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Organizing
>>888888 YOU'VE DOOMED US FOOL
(10.96 MB Tankies.webm)
>>893749 It's fine m8 the gematria is hhhhhh And we all know what happened to hitler
>>893709 >Stop coping and start organizing Gigabased
>>893709 NOOOOOOOOO XI JINPING WILL PERSONALLY BAIL US OUT WE CAN JUST CIRCLEJERK AND WAIT AT HOME UNTIL 2050 ARRIVES
>>893770 2050 with Chinese characteristics (that's 2078 for the rest of us)
(24.28 KB 188x338 medal.png)
>>893722 There's also an edu thread >>>/edu/3863 >>893709 >Stop coping and start organizing. Your heaven on earth of communism only comes from your own revolutionary efforts. medal for you comrade
(207.11 KB 321x261 xixixi.png)
>>893779 Climate change can wait, we got productive forces to build bro
>>893783 Socialism is when you got individual producers in small plots of land, with technology from the imperial era
(22.03 KB 445x267 The-Shining-008.jpg)
>>893782 Climate change says otherwise
>>893791 Socialism is when you have 30% of the world's billionaires and they create jobs and their wealth trickles down.
>>893959 German businesses could freely ignore government orders until 1943 bruh
>>894001 >Hitler’s administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations. (Page 262 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) >The Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany’s stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.” (Page 302 of Finance Capitalism and Germany's Rise to Industrial Power) >By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens. (Ibid., page 302-303) Not to mention all the Jews he kicked out of finance as well as all their wealth that he confiscated, on top of sending them into slave labor/killing them.
>>894023 and this has to do with China how? >small corporations yes of course.
>>894043 They were small and large corporations. Small businesses got crushed outright; larger ones had limits on things like dividends and foreign investment. The point is that merely regulating the bourgeoisie does not make the state socialist, since the economic motor of the country is still capitalist in essence, regardless of whatever the leadership says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvNnudTKVg0 >Chinese President Xi Jinping holds video meeting with UN chief
>>894059 All capitalism is regulated. You don't have to cry Nazi to make this weak point. I assume your books say something about why they did that?
>>893959 >le hitler comparison i'm sorry you lost a year of high school to covid anon but at least you weren't getting laid anyway
>>894085 >not necessarily socialist Ah but they can be socialist or do they have to have some magic essence? Yes states that have a market (which is all of them) have a market, great insight. Why the fuck would I expect anyone who cries about Nazis = Chyna to make an argument, I don't know.
>>894085 >Feel free to make an argument any time. with a high schooler? hard pass.
>>894098 They can indeed be socialist, however the market has to be subsumed under the socialist mode of production, which is in fact lacking in China, which is driven primarily by markets. The original counterpoint, as brought up in >>894001, was that Nazi Germany did not regulate its businesses (with the emphasis being on large businesses and the grand bourgeoisie) for a long time, however I disproved that in >>894023. The argument that Germany supposedly cannot be compared to China because of a lack of regulation is debunked, therefore reinforcing the first statement: that China's intervention in markets does not qualify it for being socialist, since Nazi Germany did essentially the same thing but as history shows, it was not socialist. You can call the comparison with Nazi Germany cheap or whatever, but the point still stands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLDV9A4JNJg >American EXPLAINS Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in 30 Minutes | The Comrade Report
>>894115 rule of thumb, everybody that compares China to Nazi Germany is a glowy. Nazi Germany fucked its economy with privatizations and decayed to pure militarist expansionism. China is the opposite they have very low to non existent militarism, and a expanding civilian economy.
>>894172 Militarism isn't necessary for a capitalist economy, especially for a country with as many natural resources as China. Keep in mind that the reason why German re-armed so much was because they wanted to take Eastern Europe in order to achieve self-sufficiency. Even throughout history China was self-sufficient in almost all aspects.
>>894185 ramble as much as you like, glowy, China does not resemble Nazi Germany.
>>894197 Rather than getting angry that your argument has been debunked, and rather than accusing your opponent to be a federal agent, you should instead read more about the history of socialist states and their related topics. Don't engage in a debate if you're just going to insult people when proven wrong.
>>894185 >Militarism isn't necessary for a capitalist economy In an era where there is no frontier and profits are stagnating it absolutely is. Up until lately, capitalist states have relied upon the U.S. military to keep the resource extraction nodes of global capitalism producing for minimal return. As the U.S. military shrinks, watch others, like China, build up to keep resources flowing.
>>894215 In the case of China, however, this isn't very applicable yet because they still have not developed their internal markets, but even still they stake large claims in territories such as the South China Sea, even when the territories they claim are closer to other countries than itself. Despite this, China is still a developing country, and its military adventurism is of course nowhere as advanced as a Western imperialist country.
>>894212 >Rather than getting angry that your argument has been debunked, and rather than accusing your opponent to be a federal agent, you should instead read more about the history of socialist states and their related topics. Don't engage in a debate if you're just going to insult people when proven wrong. You argued with somebody else, my beef with you is the Nazi comparisons.
>>894115 >the market has to be subsumed under the socialist mode of production >which is in fact lacking in China, which is driven primarily by markets. Source for any of this? Especially the second one. The first sentence I would just like some clarification on why decides what exactly constitutes "subsumed". Just drop the Nazi shit, yes. If your point has anything to do with a comparison of Nazi Germany and China it definitely does not stand. >>894212 I also have to point out that no one wrote "regulation is sufficient to be socialist" or something which should by a sane person be interpreted as such as that is what you seem to believe to have "debunked".
>>894222 Why would internal markets develop in China at all? They are disintegrating everywhere else in favor of global trade. What force would lead to the development of such an anachronistic system?
>>894268 For the former you could look at instances where markets were allowed into socialist countries, such as the Soviet Union at the time of the NEP and Hungary with its particular brand of market socialism. In the case of the former, capitalists were only allowed to own small enterprises, with the state controlling all finance, foreign trade, large industries, and natural resources. (From A history of the Soviet Union from the beginning to the end, https://archive.org/details/spacetimecodingt00libg_341). The Soviet Union, further, kept the bourgeois class small enough that it could be liquidated later, as it was starting with the first five-year plan in 1928. For the second, you can look at previous posts about this topic, such as >>832022. >If your point has anything to do with a comparison of Nazi Germany and China it definitely does not stand If you don't think it does, then refute, but it hasn't been yet. As >>893959 said, having socialist imagery and lots of state control doesn't make an economy socialist. Rather, an economy in which the socialist sector is dominant is -- only then are markets permissible within a socialist state, because otherwise bourgeois elements will become too ingrained. Even with the limited scope of the NEP, for instance, Stalin had quite a lot of trouble in later expropriating the property of the Nepmen and kulaks, who through acts of sabotage severely exacerbated an ongoing famine. >>894286 They are developing because China is. Globalization is occurring because the established capitalist powers already have their own domestic markets fully saturated, and must thus expand outwards in order to keep profits stable. Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism covers this in depth.
>>893959 >>894023 All of these economic policies the Nazis undertook seem to revolve around consolidating capital within the hands of the largest oligarchs and monopolies at the expense the smaller bourgeoise, and the persecution of Jewish porkies can be similarly understood as a power grab by non-Jewish capitalists. It's not exactly "exerting power over billionaires" when you're directly collaborating with the billionaires to expand their control over capital within the country. In any case, the comparison with China seems pretty flimsy. The Nazis wielded power on the behest of investors to tamp down on competition within the private sector, but they didn't use their power to markedly expand the public sphere or nationalize the economy on the behalf of the proletariat. China's economy, depending on how you measure it, is 63 to 80 percent state-owned enterprises which continue to expand in number, and all land is either publicly owned or farmer co-ops. Nothing even remotely comparable to this took place in Nazi Germany. I'm not saying China is definitively socialist one way or another, but trying to draw a comparison between them and the Nazis is, imho, pretty far off the mark.
>>894312 >Nothing even remotely comparable to this took place in Nazi Germany. I'm not saying China is definitively socialist one way or another, but trying to draw a comparison between them and the Nazis is, imho, pretty far off the mark. This
>>894312 A large public sector indicates only state control, that is, control by a key group of bureaucrats. A majority of the Belarusian economy is in the "public" sector, however that does not mean that the public controls it. In the case of Nazi Germany, though it is true that the larger bourgeoisie were spared from the sort of deletion that occurred to small businesses, they were nonetheless still regulated through the aforementioned means, which include dividend restrictions and restrictions on foreign investment. Of course there cannot be a direct correlation with the modern economy of China, yet it remains that in both cases there was increasing state control over the economy. In Germany, major businesses were indeed consolidated, but the growth in size of large enterprises is something that is observed in China as well. Granted that in Germany small businesses were removed outright, there can still be draw some comparison. The bottom line is, state control is not socialist, and in China the state is the one that is increasing its grip over the economy, not the proletariat.
>>894295 >They are developing because China is. That does not follow. The development of internal markets is not a given when commodities are already had more cheeply by other means. >Globalization is occurring because the established capitalist powers already have their own domestic markets fully saturated, and must thus expand outwards in order to keep profits stable. No, globalization is happening, because it can. Global capitalism is not building international markets on top of established internal markets. Rather it is entirely uprooting those internal markets and replacing them with international markets, just like it did in British India. National markets have become so integrated that the only way to delineate them is by statistal abstraction. >Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism covers this in depth. It covers an early twentieth century imperialism that disintegrated completely following the World Wars and the annihilation of all the old empires. Lenin's model does not describe global capitalism at all. So much for the highest stage.
>>894377 >muh Chinazi discarded
>>894399 based and checked
>>894399 >That does not follow. The development of internal markets is not a given when commodities are already had more cheeply by other means. Regardless of the cost of commodities, there are still significant portions of China's population that are in need of certain goods, many of them basic. Partially for this reason the Chinese state is focused on increasing the wages of its workers — so that they'll be able to purchase more of the things that are being produced. Globalization, for its part, occurs as a consequence of the first capitalist countries' development, being predicated upon foreign imperialism by requiring access to other countries' markets to begin with. China, however, is not as focused on this because it still has to develop its internal economy. >Lenin's model does not describe global capitalism at all. Though there have been developments on his model, those you can infer to be the next stages of imperialism, which of course is still prevalent in the world, though taking different forms. The predictions that Lenin made concerning how imperialism would develop are still true today: financial and industrial cartels have indeed been merged to export the practice of investment abroad, which necessarily involves geopolitical conflict in securing lands in which to exploit through this manner. There have indeed been syntheses that came after the time of Lenin, such as the military-industrial complex, but these kinds of mergers are just the development of the basic theory set forth by Lenin.
oops, i went musical: >>894502
Anyone got a flowchart on understanding socialism with Chinese characteristics, or at least a few good resources?
>>894399 >It covers an early twentieth century imperialism that disintegrated completely following the World Wars and the annihilation of all the old empires. Lenin's model does not describe global capitalism at all. So much for the highest stage. Dengoids repeatedly saying this as a cope is not gonna make it true. Actually read the work, it is not that long.
(802.76 KB 1280x2048 Xi Jinping Thought.jpg)
>>894521 Official flowchart of Xi Jinping Thought.
>>894544 That's basically no good for people who don't know Chinese. Is there is a translation?
>>894544 I don't get it. Could anyone who can translate from chinese help a comrade?
>>894577 >>894564 >cringe white leftist cannot speak chinese yet claims allegiance to deng xiaoping thought
>>894644 I'm not a Dengoid, but I would like to see what it's really about.
>>894521 Xue Muqiao - China's Socialist Economy Xue was a prominent economist in China who helped develop their market economy. https://archive.org/stream/ChinasSocialistEconomy1986/Chinas%20Socialist%20Economy%201986_djvu.txt
>>894644 according to this logic, the chinese communists must learn german, because Marx was a german
>>894759 That would at least make some sense since Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Kautsky, etc. were German-speakers, on top of many predecessors like Hegel and Kant. Learning Chinese just to read about Maoism or Dengism is by far less productive.
>>894759 More importantly it would mean everyone who wanted to say anything meaningful about socialism must learn German. I am gonna be waiting for all the ultras or whatever they are to do that.
The absolute state of this fucking thread man. Maybe we can get back to some modicum of good discussion, because the horse has so far been beat to death. We get it, there are people out there who think China is on a road to socialism and has done things as best they can with obvious flaws as to its implementation. There are others who spend a lot of time tearing down China because they don't believe the government is socialist and takes some offense at so many people defending and taking cues from what they believe to be at the least, a revisionist entity and at worse a capitalist entity masquerading as socialists. So let me frame my view of the conversation, as a supporter of China and as a supporter of the idea that China is indeed a socialist country run by a party doing its utmost to stick to Marxist values. My credentials are just a couple college courses in Marxist theory as well as my own reading and studying since I went through college about a decade ago. There is no real Marxist party here like some of you folks not based in the US, so unfortunately it has been a pretty solitary endeavor for me. First off, as to why a logical socialist would throw their personal support behind the CPC. Well, first and foremost would be the understanding of Marx's work. One might argue that the CPC has been a fairly orthodox Marxist organization since its inception, with the one caveat being Mao's revolutionary (I don't mean red revolutionary here, just very novel) idea that one can take a peasantry and make that section of society the driver of revolution in a feudal country. The main thing I want to speak to though to support the orthodox nature of the party, is how the development of China thus far has been fairly consistent with Marx's layout of the progression of society i.e slave societies into feudal societies into capitalism and eventually into socialism. They first established a rule by the people led by the CPC, solidify that rule through the use of the party (cultural revolution, very important and understated) and then has been guiding China through a period of state supervised capitalism. If you've read Marx, he had a real sort of admiration for what capitalism could do as far as transforming the world and bringing together people, resources and capital together. In this sense, they really took Lenin's quote of "a capitalist will sell you the rope you need to hang him" and took capital from the imperialist countries who were just bent on cheap labor and making the proverbial quick buck to slingshot a feudal backwater into a space age country. <The PRC's machiavellian foreign policy moves in the past. Admittedly, the PRC made a lot of moves to preserve what they had created and made a couple proverbial deals with the devil to survive. For example, when they supported the training and outfitting of the Mujahadeen against the USSR they received weapons and weapon tech from the USA in return. When they invaded Vietnam it was to offset the posturing of the USSR especially what Deng Xiaoping perceived to be aggressive posturing against the PRC by an increasingly hostile Vietnam/USSR tandem (the same Vietnam that received a whole fuckload of aid during its war against America, as well). Plainly, when I read about these things I think about two things: Realpolitik and the necessity of keeping your hopes alive for everyone else. Despite posting from Mao during the Korean War and especially his willingness to talk shit about nukes not being able to win a war that his people would die to fight, I think the CPC realized it couldn't survive like this and if it kept it up it wouldn't. I could go into how, from what I read the USSR was trying to push junior partnership on China not to mention the detestable anti-Stalinization they went through but its a lot of backstory. However, my main point here isn't to write an essay on this topic but to give a small platform a grounding: That China has always made moves to preserve its revolution and to make sure China is never again thrust into a century of humiliation. And I think there is a big character difference that it boils down to: if it was between preserving your revolution and sacrificing the revolution of others, what do you do? I'm happy to hear how it doesn't have to come down to this, but we also live in fucking 2020. The Cold War is over, it is what it is. What use is fighting about this? <Billionaires in the party. There are five stars on the flag of the PRC, and two of them stand for the petite-bourgousie and another for the national bourgeoisie. There are two caveats I look at. One being that the communist party could never truly get a handle on the development of the country especially their economic policy if they didn't add party members who were apart of these events themselves. Second, that Jack Ma isn't in the central committee of the CPC, and as I understand they're relegated to the National People's Congress. Mao pretty neatly sums it up, the same Mao who hung landlords and presided over the Cultural Revolution. >Mao Zedong: To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it. But the national bourgeoisie cannot be the leader of the revolution, nor should it have the chief role in state power. The reason it cannot be the leader of the revolution and should not have the chief role in state power is that the social and economic position of the national bourgeoisie determines its weakness; it lacks foresight and sufficient courage and many of its members are afraid of the masses. As far as I can see, the capitalists in the party are not in a chief role in state power and they are not leading the revolution. But they are party to it and will be apart of the process of destroying themselves by raising the proletariat (still being created and consolidated, btw) and the productive forces to levels that can sustain socialism. <Inequality, lack of socialized healthcare, lack of socialized higher education. These are things which I am still reading into, and while I have an understanding of the goals I can't yet understand why they haven't been put on the top of the list as far as far as party priorities yet. The inequality... poverty reduction programs are a huge part of the inequality portion for me and honestly its the only of its kind in the world. So, the inequality for me isn't so much an issue anymore especially as I know that the party is doing things to alleviate it in a big way. But the two things I can't really abide by are the lack of healthcare and the lack of free college education. As I understand it, China's healthcare still leads life expectancy on average to be higher than some of its neighboring countries that have socialized healthcare (I can't be assed too look into sources at this second) and that's pretty damn good. But, these two things are my biggest fucking peeves and I surely have to be missing something here. I'm just a dude, with lots of books and a day job. If you want to say I'm not up on theory, fine. I read my Marx, my Lenin, my Engels, and have a whole lot of other history books and niche ideological shit up there too. Along with my understanding of history and the world, I think one quote pretty much sums it up for me: >Cross the river by feeling for stones. What the CPC has accomplished, regardless of their socialist cred is amazing. They have 1.2 billion people to take care of, and when I think of my complaints I think back to various things I've had to do in my life that involved many less participants than 1.2 billion I shudder at how I would start. My gripes about healthcare, free school... alongside comprehensive poverty reduction programs. Call me weak but I don't think I could start on how to do these things in my own country while making sure things don't fall apart over the span of 70 years.
My last point I want to add: The world is facing a climate crisis the likes we have never seen and will never see because this shit will put humanity out of business. It is literally at this point, socialism or barbarism... or rather, socialism or death. And if China isn't the one to do it, we are not fucked but surely you zoomies and your kids are fucked. So either you support China to topple the US, or support China to outlast the US and provide a model for socialist development and stay on course with the green energy initiatives they've taken... there are a couple reasons. But at this point if it isn't China, we've lost. The communists have fucking lost and Marx will have been wrong. The capitalists will have killed us before the proletariat got to them. And that's all I've got to really say on this edition of a concerned slightly-old fag.
China: carbon peak by 2030, socialism by 2049, carbon neutral by 2060 West: intermittent squatopias. >>893774 based and enlightenmentpilled >888888 shit get, not even giving it a link
>>894900 based and effort posted
>>894900 On the other hand, I would say that China's past foreign policy is not justified. Even if we assume that the USSR did indeed seek to make itself the primary leader of the socialist world, with China being second, it is no justification for attacking it or other socialist countries. De-Stalinization was indeed a blight of Soviet policy, however the USSR was still a socialist state that needed China's support in establishing a united world front against capitalism — instead, China would rather support NATO against the premier socialist power of the world and its allies. We're not just talking about the USSR and Vietnam though, China has a history of this kind of nonsense long enough to seriously discredit it as a country worth being called socialist: supporting the rightist MPLA in Angola, funding the genocidal regime of Siad Barre in Somalia against communist Ethiopia, backing the Pinochet regime, and selling weapons to imperialist states such as Israel, who incidentally it also carries out joint military drills with. This is not what a socialist state does, at all. China is opportunist, and is concerned with the preservation of its ruling class first and the world socialist movement second. No blunder of any socialist country comes close to the magnitude of damage that China has done.
>>894954 First off, can you provide me sources for the Pinochet and Ethipia stuff comrade? I haven't found these claims on my shelf, I'd be interested in reading more. Second, on the USSR... To me it seems they weren't just trying to make China a junior partner but also attempted to implement some rather lopsided deals for infrastructure help that honestly sounded a lot more like small time colonization and resource extraction in inner-Mongolia not to mention their blatant grab at land in the north of China. >China is opportunist, and is concerned with the preservation of its ruling class first and the world socialist movement second. No blunder of any socialist country comes close to the magnitude of damage that China has done. Opportunist, I can give you. Cut throat in regards to preserving itself, yes. What I think we disagree on is whether this is necessary behavior, and I think it is honestly. Or at least the stuff I know about, since I asked you for reading on the other things.
(28.43 KB 1354x89 unita.png)
(30.62 KB 1345x111 siyaad.png)
>>894954 >supporting the rightist MPLA in Angola, UNITA was originally maoist, but later became far-right. MPLA however started out ML. >funding the genocidal regime of Siad Barre in Somalia against communist Ethiopia, Ethiopian-Somali relations should be looked at with nuance because both nations claimed to be ML until somalia fell apart after losing foreign support, and siyaad played tribes against eachother to maintain power
>>894954 Sino Soviet split was a mutual fuck up
>>894971 China supporting Pinochet: https://web.archive.org/web/20121006022848/https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Final_Draft_Formatted-Navia.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/business/us-and-others-gave-millions-to-pinochet.html Somalia: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/09/16/archives/russians-in-somalia-foothold-in-africa-suddenly-shaky.html What exactly did the USSR have in mind for China? I don't remember any deals they sought which were of that nature. >>894976 It's true that UNITA was communist at first, but even then it struggled against the Soviet-backed MPLA. One instance of this is where UNITA established a rival state in Angola called the Democratic People's Republic of Angola. Actually, saying that China was backing a rightist party isn't exactly correct, but still China used it as a pawn against the USSR, which for its own part was instead struggling against bourgeois rule firstly. As for Somalia, it is indeed an ML state, however China backed the Somalian war effort even despite the knowledge that Somalia invaded Ethiopia on the basis of claiming a racial minority. Castro suggested a federation among Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Yemen, yet Siad Barre refused this in favor of an ethnic Somali state. China apparently felt it was necessary to support Barre, however, as he was invading a country that was supported by the USSR. This, in my view, is something that's way too repetitive of a theme in China's foreign policy.
>>894900 >>894916 >>894971 incredible effortpost, well done. I think wether we like it or not, regardless of what we might believe we cannot really count on China nor hitch our wagons to it. We gotta continue doing our own thing where we live. And btw if China is Capitalist we still have to remember to resolutely take the revolutionary-defeatist position in the inter-imperial struggle. Never support the west against China.
>>894900 Pretty good post, but China has 1.4 billion
>>894900 I too question the underdevelopment of healthcare and education benefits in China. However on poverty alleviation they are making steady progress and plan to continue with the poverty alleviation programs for the next 5 year plan.
(352.28 KB 220x188 tenor.gif)
So hold on Under a Dictatorship of the proletarian or People's Democratic Dictatorship Wouldn't the state take the surplus of workers and use that to raise the standard of living
>>896075 Not necessarily, the state could also take the surplus and invest it into building more heavy industry. See for example the first 5 year plan of the USSR or the PRC before Deng.
>>895044 They support shtiochet? That is scummy as fuck
>>896075 The proletarian class would use its own surplus for its own ends. The state is not an independent entity.
>>894925 Delusional and salty
(57.44 KB 500x500 1bece10.jpg)
>Implement capitalist reforms >Cause new capitalist strata to appear <We must let capitalists join our party since they are a part of our society and the party must reflect our society 1:1 The Eternal Dengoid always offers solutions to problems he creates in the first place.
>>896237 image was from mao era, incel
>>896243 have sex
where (you) belong: >>896328
much opposition was had
>>896458 Who could be trying to use the China issue to split the progressive international?
>>896243 It’s literally quoted above in my effort post that Mao intended to use capitalists and capitalism under the supervision of the state, and that petit and national bourgeoisie represent two of the stars on the flag of the PRC since it’s inception. You’re either being purposefully dishonest in this example or are just a moron.
>>896471 >the progressive international The what now? Anyway Varoufakis has the correct position, and Karl Liebknecht was right.
>>896520 Yeah, what I don't remember so much was Mao talking about how the politbureau should be filled with millionaries and how billionaires should be functionaires in the state.
>>896458 Only a question of time until the blue checkmarks found out about the Qiao Collective. If they would actually be principled here and not be spineless I would actually respect Varoufakis and the PI. But considering how divisive the China is right now they'll probably bend the knee.
>>896551 In the original post you are probably referring to it was laid out how said capitalists are exactly not in the politburo and are instead at best delegated to the NPC where they can be overruled at all times.
>>896458 Also, just looked up the dude he was replying to (did he delete the tweet? I can't find it), and Jesus Christ that guy is an absolute piece of shit.
>>893709 >Stop coping and start organizing >Your heaven on earth of communism only comes from your own revolutionary efforts. 10/10 glowie >stop looking for help from a country with huge resources and organization >just go out and get jailed lmao
>>896695 >Don't do anything, rather post on twitter on the hopes a country notoriously known for not exporting communism will help you top glow
Thoughts about private property ownership in China?
>>896520 >There is no functional difference between petite bourgeois in 1950s China and the world's richest billionaires in 2020s
>>896724 >Don't do nothing And where did I say that?
>>896471 kek >>896545 >Anyway Varoufakis has the correct position in what way minorities oppressed in China? >>896600 Fuck knows with Varoufakis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03l3Ra4bL_A He is kinda unpredictable on a lot of things, hence his rock star image. I would never have predicted, for example, that he'd oppose Brexit.
>>896285 And yet China supported Pinochet well after Mao.
>>897225 Is this true?
Is life of an chinese prole better than american? Can they unionize and do strikes when met with unfair boss practices? Do they get paid properly What is different about chinese transitional capitalism than regular capitalism
>>894900 >made a lot of moves to preserve what they had created and made a couple proverbial deals with the devil to survive honestly, I feel like absolutely none of those were worth it, they were all net negative to humanity, and china didnt even get that much in return >There are five stars on the flag of the PRC, and two of them stand for the petite-bourgousie and another for the national bourgeoisie and thats good... how? >and will be apart of the process of destroying themselves .... and you dont see any contradiction there ? >Jack Ma isn't in the central committee of the CPC, and as I understand they're relegated to the National People's Congress oh right, and his billions and owning of biggest item supplier dont give him any political leverage at all ? >add party members who were apart of these events themselves so basically "NEP bosses must be part of the political decisions" ? >poverty reduction programs basically "dont let people die on the street" ? so impressive for such a giant economy. >and to make sure China is never again thrust into a century of humiliation by fucking with all other socialist projects in existence and being the good porky's red boy. Great job. > I'm not up on theory my problem is that you somehow believe that capitalism was the only way to achieve this, and you seem fine with giving them plenty of political power cause they will "wither away willingly". Sound completely naive. What must be built to achieve socialism is a system that inherently goes towards it, cause its the direct self interest for all people with power within to do it. I dont believe such system has been achieved in china, quite the contrary.
>>897225 "The People's McDonald's" is an oxymoron. No self-respecting workers' state would allow their people to eat that crap; it would be like saying "The People's gutter oil".
>>896853 that's just one star, another is for the national (big) bourgeoisie. given the less developed state of China at the time those few national big bourgeois were probably relatively more powerful than the diffuse millionaire and billionaires now >>897588 worse in china in absolute terms, but with better prospects for the future also not impossible that in certain areas it is already better to be prole in china, pic related
>>897900 That chart is missing a source, should be in the image.
>>897588 >Is life of an chinese prole better than american? Chinese prole experiences improving conditions, American prole has dwindling prospects. That is not to be underestimated.
>>897977 aka. the reason for all the polls showing that people feel optimistic about their futures in China, 80% approve the party, etc. etc. In the West we just accepted that we are going to die miserably and pretend that it's normal. Iirc correctly an EU youth sociological research came out in 2016 commissioned by the EU bureaucracy that showed that in some countries up to 40% of youngsters would like to "violently overthrow the government" and then ofc they did everything in their powers to address the causes of this problem, lolno.
(49.90 KB 613x360 invinciblemarxism.jpg)
>>897759 >honestly, I feel like absolutely none of those were worth it, they were all net negative to humanity, and china didnt even get that much in return Considering the tech they got back from America to develop the productive forces that would eventually end up bolstering one in seven humans on the planet (Chinese), the security they got from the alliance to protect their polity (could've easily been another toppled red nation), I think those two factors alone provide a big backdrop to the success they're having now. And to be honest, some of these small time events that have been listed such as their involvement in Angola sound like 1) there are two sides to the issue that often get deliberately muddled here and 2) in a geopolitical sense, are small issues. That is not to say that Somalia doesn't matter, but would dying on that hill help your argument somehow that it set humanity back? That's a pretty large statement. >and thats good... how? I didn't actually say it was good, but that's just the way it is. The two forms of capitalist, petit and national make up a part of the Chinese nation and Mao decided that instead of outright destroying them he would both recognize them as a part of the nation (because according to Marx, capitalists are the necessary precursor to capitalism and therefore necessary to getting to socialism). >.... and you dont see any contradiction there ? I don't think you're thinking about two things which you probably know, unless I'm giving you too much credit. The first is the following: >"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. - Lenin". >"...and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it. - Mao So as you can see, they both understood that the bourg are very short sighted, that capital is basically what you would call a parasite and single mindedly drives a person to acquire more capital at the expense of everything else. Again, building on the Mao quote above that I put down "the social and economic position of the national bourgeoisie determines its weakness; "...it lacks foresight and sufficient courage and many of its members are afraid of the masses". They are easily corralled and controlled, if you operate from a Marxist perspective as the CPC has been doing. And continuing on that Mao quote, he knows that they lack foresight and they are cowed by the strong concentrated will of the masses in the Chinese case represented by the party. Even today they are executed and jailed for stepping out of line, is this not undeniable? Now do I deny that there are probably secret capitalists in the CPC? No. But I do believe Xi Jinping is a sign of the time, and that the party recognizes these problems and are taking steps to mitigate it and keep the party in the driver's seat. So do I see a contradiction? No I don't, and that's with the understanding of what capitalists are, what drives them, and the things I see coming out of the party since its inception. I do think the CPC has shown one can control capitalism and use it, but obviously I'm not going to sit here and say I believe the 2050 and 2078 goals outright. A lot can still go wrong, and as I admitted I already see a lot of wrong happening with the lack of socialized medicine and education. >oh right, and his billions and owning of biggest item supplier dont give him any political leverage at all ? My counter point is that the "commanding heights" of the Chinese economy is in the hands of SOE's. Second, as I mentioned above if Jack Ma did anything crazy his head would be swiftly separated from his body. So, no, I don't think he has any leverage per se and he can definitely be replaced. >basically "dont let people die on the street" ? so impressive for such a giant economy. This is a dishonest take. I would recommend anyone watch this PBS documentary "On the Frontlines: China's War on Poverty" and then say that the nature of their work is just not let people die in the street. https://mega.nz/file/SMsDhArZ#vS7dPwnv5DVsbaB_GP4t3I61CWFzxdIRxix9ivHDsgI >by fucking with all other socialist projects in existence and being the good porky's red boy. Great job. I kid you not, and this will definitely rustle some jimmies. Thinking about the geopolitics of the Cold War, and the way things were going for various red states back in the day if it came down to supporting a various revolution in some distant place or making sure a revolution in my home country succeeded so we could have a greater impact on the world later I would do it 100% of the time especially in from the eyes of the Deng or Mao. I think a lot of you are idealists in the sense that you believe otherwise, and that's fine because we need people like that for perspective. But if China would've taken the course that many of you allude to, I genuinely believe China would be another post Cold-War Russia. The USA is collapsing and China is emerging as the pre-eminent power. The Belt and Road initiative is going to do amazing things for the historically poor places in the world, and Chinese partnership is having a positive impact in places like Africa and South America. And let me say again: The USA, the great Satan, the biggest fucking evil menace this world has seen yet is fucking collapsing and China is showing the world there is another way. All because it made a deal with that devil to develop itself under the nose of capitalists who are again, easily manipulated for a quick buck. >my problem is that you somehow believe that capitalism was the only way to achieve this, and you seem fine with giving them plenty of political power cause they will "wither away willingly". Sound completely naive. What must be built to achieve socialism is a system that inherently goes towards it, cause its the direct self interest for all people with power within to do it. I dont believe such system has been achieved in china, quite the contrary. Pal, I don't know how to lay it out any clearer. Marx definitively talks about stages of development, and even he didn't believe Russia or feudal countries were ready for revolution. The Chinese proved there is a way, and they are proving it now. But the thing is and this is important, I don't think you're a moron for thinking this. We can disagree, and that's fine. Marx was the chief critic and criticism is central to Marxist thought. But I'm sick and tired of this "lol dengoid" and "lol retard" type of discourse here. If we're all communists we're at least holding out hope for something better than our current lot in life together.
I want Red Guard gf, guys.
>>898104 Can you explain how exactly China needed to have a capitalist mode of production in order to obtain foreign technologies? Was this really not possible with a smaller-scale market program, like the one the USSR had in the NEP? Couldn't China just focus on stealing foreign tech and manufacturing it itself? As for foreign policy blunders, I wouldn't say they are small issues. China did this repeatedly around the world, much beyond these two instances. Besides this, it demonstrates that the Chinese leadership is focused on the interests of its ruling class, rather than the international proletariat. Helping to transform other countries into socialist states isn't a waste of resources, furthermore, since it directly contributes to the strengthening of the socialist world and the weakening of the capitalist one. Across multiple countries, this effect stacks up rather commensurately.
>>898213 >get technology via industrial espionage Chicken and the egg problem, spies need advanced technology to steal secrets.
>>898253 Not really, often hacking is as simple as pretending to be someone else when calling up their email company or whatever to retrieve their password. Even then, does China really need a supercomputer to hack, assuming they use more bug-based exploits?
>>898213 >like the one the USSR had in the NEP? Couldn't China just focus on stealing foreign tech and manufacturing it itself? Not who you are replying to, and not particularly a Chinaboo, but I think history speaks for itself here. There were wider forces that pushed the ML states to the position they are in, and to the extent the USSR was an example of taking a better path it ultimately led to it abolishing itself. There are some old ML states that have limited markets (Cuba and DPRK), but they're still precarious and weak and everyone looks at those limited market policies and believes they're going to expand. They might be able to hold out politically, but it is a siege mentality. China dropped siege mentality because the market reforms it made allowed it to simply engage in the world economy like a relatively typical capitalist state. Will it lead to anything but the dissolution of the communist party? Will the communist party ever abolish the market? All speculation. But China's high tech sector is now starting to directly compete with the developed countries, which is a part of what is making their corporate interests afraid. That wasn't really the case with the USSR. It had tech advancements, and obviously the space race happened, but overall it was a steep climb followed by technological stagnation. The internet should have been the soviet's baby, but instead the US dominated its development. Maybe China is also on a steep climb into stagnation, but it will be based on who wins the trade wars. Or maybe China wins but they just become like Japan or something, which isn't really a win. So who knows, all speculation. Future will tell if China actually becomes a progressive force in world history, but at this point unfortunately the corpse of the USSR is not, despite its obvious importance to the 20th century.
>>898262 Look at the bigger picture, why doesn't technology development equalize? Soviets had lots of spies yet they still struggled to catch up.
(87.55 KB 1280x720 lost-civilization.jpeg)
Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 metres – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/23/melting-antarctic-ice-will-raise-sea-level-by-25-metres-even-if-paris-climate-goals-are-met-study-finds You know what this calls for guys? Another half century of capitalism! This is definitely something that will benefit humankind in the long run and not a corrupt group of bureaucrats who will die before the world gets destroyed from climate change. Say it with me: PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF EAST ATLANTIS!
>>898310 >Or maybe China wins but they just become like Japan or something, which isn't really a win. Unlikely since Jspan's economy was deliberately sacrificed to keep the USA economy afloat
>>898333 Cut the melting ice into blocks, load on ships, dump it into a desert, melting ice water is soaked up by sprouting fauna that grows over the desert instead of raising the Ocean level. Rate my brain-fart.
>>898398 9000+/10
>>898310 >followed by technological stagnation sound like propaganda. Tech was not the ussr problem. >the corpse of the USSR is not wat. USSR wasn't a progressive force just cause it failed ? bs
>>898333 >Comrades! Let us cut our industrial power at the knees, and be the only major world power to do so! This will surely ensure the victory of socialism. The problem with a prisoners dilemma is that you cannot subvert it by being virtuous yourself. Unless it can do so in the framework of a new international agreement of which the US is also part, any deceleration of growth in the PRC just weakens its relative standing against a bloc of reactionary enemies bent on its destruction.
>>898213 industrial espionage becomes easier as economies are integrated; if you have a relatively closed off economy with few people coming in and few people going overseas, the opportunities for nicking tech are insignificant. especially if the cultural barrier is as high as it is between China and everyone else and advancements will be much slower regardless. if you're painstakingly building a factory to make the most advanced tools you need to make another more advanced type of factory, you'll be very limited in output volume. if however you can set your relatively backwards economy to work pumping out bulk crap that you can make without effort you might well be able to acquire more of those advanced machine tools on the international market, utilizing comparative advantage. of course you need to couple that with directed developmental industrial policy, or you just turn into Bangladesh I don't think the comparison with NEP quite flies by the way. the "distance" between China and the west was greater than between USSR and the other great powers of the day, and besides there was no unipolar hegemony like exists today. the USSR could play France, Germany, Britain and the US against each other to get what it wanted, while China is effectively stuck with either Russia (not an option after the Sino Soviet split), and the US & its many appendages like the EU and Japan. there was no option for direct exchanges like Germany and early USSR did, but only to join the US dominated world system on its terms - free market terms
>>898213 >Can you explain how exactly China needed to have a capitalist mode of production in order to obtain foreign technologies? Was this really not possible with a smaller-scale market program, like the one the USSR had in the NEP? Couldn't China just focus on stealing foreign tech and manufacturing it itself? So, here is what I'm understanding comrade. Let me know if this vibes with you. First, let me correct your view of what I'm saying. They didn't need a capitalist mode of production simply to obtain foreign technologies. Having state supervised capitalism surely helped in garnering foreign interest, capital and expertise because of the enticing prospect of profit for them. But the technology is not the only reason they needed to go through the capitalist stage of production. Listen to Marx himself: >The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? Marx again: >The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. . . . Capitalism is a necessary stage of production because the bourg are simply good at revolutionizing a feudal society. It is their nature to revolutionize production. Without capitalists doing this, there would be no basis for socialism because the proletariat would have no means of production to control and take care of society with. TO ME, I understand Marx as saying basically that capitalism is going to create what we understand as automation or something very near to it and then the people will fully be able to say we have transitioned to socialism. So we have established that the bourg are good at what they do, revolutionizing production and along with it whole segments of society and the way we organize labor. We have also established through our Marxist (thanks Lenin) lens that capitalists will literally destroy themselves to make a profit. I've stated repeatedly through this thread so far the Lenin quote that talks about a capitalist being willing to sell you the noose you're going to hang him in. But, contrary to the rather simplistic views that are given here tech is not simply some box you can steal and boom, you have tech. It requires technical know how, much akin to how Japan contracted Western advisors to assist them in spheres like military organization and industrialization. They also sent their students abroad as well as emissaries to learn and study the technology that existed abroad to eventually come home and teach it to others. Its a very long process. China figured out how to use these two facts we've established 1) capitalism revolutionizes the means of production 2) capitalists will destroy themselves in pursuit of a buck by literally putting a whole bunch of profit into a trap and robbing the capitalists of their technology and productive capital while the capitalist is busy feasting itself on cheap profits. America and Europe allowed Chinese emissaries into their countries to observe how they do things, and their capitalists sent technical advisors to build up Western factories with Western tech in China. All the while, the Chinese had conditions as you probably know about of putting Chinese representatives in every Western enterprise to advise and observe how they did things. This includes how they managed their workforces, how to do things efficiently, how to organize a board meeting, what they talked about... basically how to run productive enterprises. Again, this is a very long process. Understand that China's education system was in a fucking shambles after Mao attempted to change the very spirit and ideological nature of the country since 1949. They were destroying the livelihoods of professors, experts, and etc. Schools were being run by literal teens, doctors and educators were being harassed and ridiculed. You can't just take this society and "steal tech" and voila, you have a nicely organized production line to produce baby bottles and chairs and pencils and things that we all take for granted in industrialized countries. Take a look at exactly the kind of scale of expansion China's productive forces went through from 1978 to 2018, and then look at the USSR from the end of WWII up to its dissolution. Comrade Stalin is my boy, and I am an ML myself, and one cannot discount what the USSR did in getting to space and changing from a feudal backwater. But I think the PRC has demonstrated there is a better way than the USSR did, and the proof is in the pudding. Simply put comrade, capitalism is a necessary stage of development per Marx and revolutionizing your productive forces as an agarian backwater country that has absolutely obliterated its schooling system will require outside expertise, capital, and advisors. And this process takes time, stealing tech won't cut it because that only happens in video games. >As for foreign policy blunders, I wouldn't say they are small issues. China did this repeatedly around the world, much beyond these two instances. Besides this, it demonstrates that the Chinese leadership is focused on the interests of its ruling class, rather than the international proletariat. I wouldn't call them blunders at all, and I actually agree with you in a sense. The Chinese leadership is definitely focused on the interests of its ruling class, which is the Chinese proletariat as represented by the CPC. They did what they had to do to survive in a very cutthroat world especially in the Cold War, and they wouldn't sacrifice their revolution or development for any outside forces because the situation was too tenuous for that. Its as simple as that for me. Communism is a worldwide movement inherently, and I don't think the CPC has forgotten that. But its taken the longer view. Their choice sounded like "do we extend ourselves while we're barely functioning and come out as a loser in the Cold War" or "do we bide our time, ruthlessly defend our revolution, and bank on being more powerful later on to do more good than we can do right at this second".
>>896600 >Only a question of time until the blue checkmarks found out about the Qiao Collective. Even representatives of the chinese state media started recently sharing tweets by Qiao Collective
>>896600 They already know, you should look up on the PI twitter when QC joined, and all the soything it caused.
(447.97 KB 500x210 shrug.gif)
>>898824 Really, I think capitalism is a necessary stage at this point just because it happened. As in, the world market for capital is constrained by the logic of capitalism. Capitalism is global, so it is effectively inescapable. To the extent that you can avoid it, you will be stuck in an economic and political siege. I consider myself to use a historical materialist analysis, but I also don't like to be too deterministic about what potential futures there could have been. Perhaps it was possible at some point for a kind of command industrial economy to rise up. We see that even crude economic planning was feasible in the 20th century, and going back throughout history economic planning was essentially a political reality even if it wasn't conceived that way. Interest groups underneath the ruling class would often vie for protections of their ability to engage in commerce, to the extent that commerce supported them (most of human history being made up of agricultural peasantry rather than merchants and manufacturers), there'd be laws fixing prices or deciding who was allowed to sell what etc. which were mostly for political stability. But just seeing as capitalism is the system that successfully industrialized the global economy, it is now necessary to either have revolutions within the capitalist core to disrupt the biggest capital flows, or it is necessary to have myriad concurrent revolutions in the periphery to do the same, but in a much more diffuse way. OR you try to capture the capital without sacrificing your revolutionary agency. Which is what the CPC claims to be doing. I don't pass much judgement on it, I think it is unknowable if they're actually going to do it. In fact, the CPC itself doesn't even know. Maybe its leaders fully consider themselves to be cynical opportunists using propaganda to hide their intentions. But even if that were the case, they trumpet that propaganda from on high. They promote Marxism and socialism/communism as a program. They may even purposely try to bastardize Marxist analysis to serve their interests, but I think the fact they continue to reproduce it as a valuable analytical frame, as well as the whole notion of markets serving a social purpose, a political transition, means that whatever their intentions are there is a seed there for revolt as well should they come to break from that vision. So it may be that they inadvertently do exactly what they say they're doing, even if they don't intend it. They may draw tons of capital in, intertwine themselves deeply in global markets, and then all of a sudden gravely betray the working class of China. At that point the Chinese working class may turn to the continuing national identity that the CPC itself has fostered, one of advancement towards socialism by whatever means possible. But the betrayal would have to be in terms of the CPC no long delivering quality of life improvements. The CPC in some ways already betrayed the working class when they took away the iron rice bowl, but they weathered that turmoil only because they were able to turn around and quickly start delivering improving living conditions. If they had just stagnated then there probably would have been a revolution, whether in the USSR coup by the party itself kind of sense or more expanded Tienanmen Square type incidents. But that revolution could have easily been a capitalist one as well, because it would have coincided more or less with the USSR's collapse as well as been tinged by the general sense of communism failing. But now the situation in China is different. Now it is all about rising from the ashes and saving the socialist ethos and dream. So I think a new betrayal or market collapse could instead result in a kind of socialist revival, a sense that the party got corrupted by capitalism rather than that SOCIALISM as such failed.
Market reforms began in 1978, well before the Soviet Union collapsed or anyone really thought it was going to. Why did China choose the capitalist world instead of spreading the revolution with the USSR? If anything they were fighting the USSR and its policy of exporting socialism.
>>898915 Because they knew that the USSR was a sinking ship. They weren't going to tie themselves to it over ideals.
I think what people miss when they debate China being socialist or not is that whatever ideology China finds itself under, it's development of the productive forces and raising of living standards will mean the end of capitalism as the world system. Even if China was outright fascist their development would still in the end be a progressive historical force. Any thoughts?
>>898920 Why did they think it was a "sinking ship"? If anything that wouldn't become apparent until the late 80s.
>>898928 Nah, there were definite signs of Soviet stagnation throughout the Brezhnev years, the initial split was over Mao and Khrushchev's mutual ideological hangups but Deng definitely saw the Soviets as a sinking ship.
>>898935 What signs were there precisely that made the Soviet Union irredeemable, supposedly? Did Deng advise the Soviets to reform?
>>898915 The market reforms were gradual, they still had the veneer of Maoism and soviet socialism at first because they were making some changes without immediately smashing the whole thing. The CPC's shift in direction was both based on its political shift as well as the conditions in the USSR. I don't think they took the market shift purely because they saw the USSR as collapsing in the near future, but I think it was more like there were other often seemingly stupid political disagreements between the USSR and China that led China to break away, and in order to effectively make that break from the soviets it looked for economic partnership with the only other major power, the USA. In the process it started engaging in the market reforms to better facilitate that shift in strategy. But they rationalize that outwardly as being a necessary evolution on soviet socialism in order to survive and thrive in the Chinese context. I actually don't think it is totally important if that is what they really believe or not, because they still really do entirely present themselves as communists and the state ideology as attempting to establish communism. I have no idea how that turns out in the end, but it is markedly different from American or European political experience. In America many people think capitalism is being corrupted because they're told that capitalism is how they achieved all of their wealth and power, so it is easy enough to sell the story that at some point America just got captured by corrupt businessmen or that it strayed from what made it rich. Whereas in China there is a different political culture. People aren't stupid, they know the markets developed modern China, but they also know that the markets developed China by selling to the western capitalists. They also know that the western countries are stagnating. I think there is a whole different possible narrative there, with an understanding that even if markets developed China it was as a controlled and directed tool by the state, and that there is an international dimension to market prosperity. Some countries seemingly benefit when other countries are poor and exploited (imperialism). Futhermore, even though those countries are rich to the extent they are dominated by capitalist interests and bourgeois states they have proven politically unstable and economically stagnant. So I'm curious if, in the case the CPC openly betrays the working class of China, whether or not the dominant narrative will be that the CPC got captured by capitalists, but the answer isn't to put in the good capitalists. The answer is to purge the party and put in authentic communists who will do what it takes to continue spreading prosperity in China.
>>898824 the bourgeoisie is not inherently more competent in implementing industry and revolutionizing the means of production, the Soviet union afterall advanced faster. A Capitalist mode of production is not strictly necessary. China's geopolitical situation and the technical gap was the cause of market liberalization. Socialist modes of production will arise long before all production is automated, the capitalist mode of production cannot do it.
(66.23 KB 652x488 125.jpg)
>>898942 I have two concerns over this. What you're saying is pretty anti-Marx, and I'm not worshipping him like Jesus but he's pretty right about this. There is a reason he admired what they could do as a class. And second, did the Soviet Union advance faster? Because they did end up collapsing under their own weight. Their consumer goods sector lagged so far behind their government expenditures that eventually their military spending was just not up to par. I don't know if I can rightfully attribute it to their technology not being up to par, but they certainly were hard pressed for capital and high grade machinery for their consumer goods sector. I don't know pal, this just isn't a good enough justification to shake my foundational belief in what Marx said above in my other posts. Mao was on the same line here. Again, not to mention the USSR eventually failed because of very related issues over just not having enough oomph to back up their fight against the US and NATO all over the world.
>>898909 By the way chum, you're onto some really good points. >OR you try to capture the capital without sacrificing your revolutionary agency. Which is what the CPC claims to be doing. I don't pass much judgement on it, I think it is unknowable if they're actually going to do it. We can sit here deliberating all day, but you've got the biggest reality to me. This is just unknowable without being a fly on the wall in the central committee. >In fact, the CPC itself doesn't even know. Maybe its leaders fully consider themselves to be cynical opportunists using propaganda to hide their intentions. But even if that were the case, they trumpet that propaganda from on high. They promote Marxism and socialism/communism as a program. They may even purposely try to bastardize Marxist analysis to serve their interests, but I think the fact they continue to reproduce it as a valuable analytical frame, as well as the whole notion of markets serving a social purpose, a political transition, means that whatever their intentions are there is a seed there for revolt as well should they come to break from that vision. We are of the same mind. I agree, if they are posturing I really don't see the need to produce such prodigious amounts of Marxist literature, theory, and educational programs. It would be pretty damn counterproductive of them to do this if their goal was to capture the economy as capitalists, and they're only stunting themselves in the pursuit of profit if they continue this whole veneer. And if they did, the seeds are there for revolt like you said.
>>898963 The consumer goods sector lagged largely because of poor planning and an overly-conservative bureaucracy. This is why it's necessary to have the proletariat be the ones in charge, not some officials. OGAS would have significantly alleviated the USSR's situation and allow it to live beyond 1991, into the time where capitalism is now breaking apart. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are the products of a system where the state rules, while the people languish. The end of the PRC would of course have different conditions to it but it should at least be largely similar to the USSR in essence, since the PRC failed to correct this problem (and realistically, trying to might cause the destruction of the People's Republic, but not trying to install a dictatorship of the proletariat on the other hand indicates the country is progressing along a course of brain death).
>>898104 >rustle some jimmies okay, this fag is confirmed oldfag
>>898104 >But if China would've taken the course that many of you allude to, I genuinely believe China would be another post Cold-War Russia. pretty much this. By opening up to the West China actually diversified communist strategy instead of us having it in only one basket.
(648.46 KB 800x450 rustleJimmies.jpg)
>>898104 based and consideratepilled
(276.87 KB 2095x1358 bruh.png)
>>8925 why tf are chinese people so anti semitic?
>>899070 >nation of 1.4 billion people >pic of comments from under a video? article? that probably interests these kind of people <look, I found anti-semitism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb6Yuom2Dqo >China's last village to get road access to the outside world
>>899248 Simply epic. This is also why I never bought that Romanian comrade's claims about how removing Hungarian village were merely the result of the "necessary rationalization of the economy." Nigler, the Chinese are building kilometers of roads with tunnels and shit for villages of 50 or so people and the people low the party for it. Or take China's construction of entire whole new small towns instead of the shanties. Did they just demolish their shit and tell them to go to the nearest big city? Fuck no, they made a new town for them, preserving the local culture, community, language, everything.
>>8925 Brehs, how is China going to win? They don't really seem to have any allies and a lot of Chinese people seem kind of full of themselves honestly
>>899417 I do not understand your question. Have you considered reformulating it to take advantage of the framework of historical materialism?
>>899417 It helps to have the biggest labor force in the world, the largest pool of natural resources in the world, a massive and unprecedented infrastructure plan that will ensure China's central spot in global trade, on top the western capitalists' power declining. The level to which people think "allies" matter is idealist, since countries will swap their allegiances to the new strongest country if the old one falls, since they of course are driven by the need to grow profits steadily. Most countries, whose ranks are ever increasing, recognize the PRC only and don't recognize Taiwan at all.
>>899417 They have Pakistan and Russia. You can also argue for Vuvuzuela right now. At the moment they’re improving relations with African states as to gain alliances there.
>>900872 >They have Pakistan and Russia. They also have several development project in Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, etc. To say that China is surrounded by enemies would be a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mUa8VavDc&list=PLbnMTcZEga8RRyTMl4pIAXjQNqsV1xVPM
>>900876 Plus a lot of China's "enemies" end up collaborating with it and going along with its plans anyway. For instance, Vietnam and some other "hostile" Asian countries are cooperating on the Belt and Road initiative.
>>901001 The trade war literally revived good relations between China and Vietnam.
>>901001 Very true. The idea of surrounding China like this was always a bit of a US pipe dream - China might not be well liked, but if you have to live in their neighborhood you don't want to get on their bad side. No matter how powerful, the US is still always an ocean away.
>>898990 >This is why it's necessary to have the proletariat be the ones in charge, not some officials. Ultra abstraction. It's fun to fantasize about OGAS but really we don't have any other model for how to run a non-market economy than through specialized planners. Proletarians are not magical creatures that can intuit input-output tables across nationwide industry. And if you say, spontaneous coordination between the various worker collectives, well that is at best just a market with red paint, and at worst a return to the manor-system.
(2.55 MB 888888.mp4)
>>898935 Nearly nobody predicted even in the 1985 that the USSR would collapse any time soon (much less in 1979 as Deng entered office), so unless Deng was clairvoyant I don't believe it.
>>901214 Do not underestimate diamat Castro made some spookily prescient predictions in his time as did Marx and many other theorists
I would like to congratulate the bottled water tycoon Zhong Shanshan for becoming China's richest man with a net worth of 58.7 billion USD He is famous for founding the Nongfu Spring Co., selling water from wells in China to consumers all around Asia. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-23/jack-ma-no-longer-china-s-richest-as-lone-wolf-s-fortune-soars
>>901191 underrated
>>901191 Bunkerchan history
>>898990 I wanted to respond along the same lines as >>901185. I think you're really abstracting your concepts. First of all, I would challenge your seeming assertion that the CPC is not the manifestation of the proletariat. It is standard Marxist Leninist practice to trust a vanguard body of communists to put forth the will of the people. With the Maoist adoption of the mass line, I don't think one can really disregard that the CPC is a fairly orthodox Marxist party in charge of a dictatorship of the proletariat. But lets go ahead and talk about your ideas. >The consumer goods sector lagged largely because of poor planning and an overly-conservative bureaucracy. This is why it's necessary to have the proletariat be the ones in charge, not some officials. OGAS would have significantly alleviated the USSR's situation and allow it to live beyond 1991, into the time where capitalism is now breaking apart. But what does that mean, to have the proletariat be in charge? Up above you seemed to have alluded to the need for China to be more like the USSR but you also seem to say that the USSR wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat (proles owning the MoP). So there seems to be something lost in your thought at least as you convey it. Secondly, lets go back to the "proletariat being in charge". If you mean that bodies of workers would vote on every single last thing, from voting whether Fred can take Marcia's shift on Friday to whether we should actually ship the shipment of nails that the factory across the country needs by Thursday... is this what you mean? Because delegation is something that is extremely useful to working as collectives, something that the bourg introduced as well. It is just not possible to have these things as well as the macro parts of the economy be in the bounds of voting at all levels. I think you also disregard the situation the USSR was in. Unlike China, they chose to dedicate a significant portion of their economy to the military. On the other hand, China chose to simple work with the West and kill two birds with one stone: 1) Obtain finance and capital and technology and catch up economically until they could 2) Acquire security through working with the West so they didn't have to basically be prepared to fight at all times. I weep for the Soviet Union, and I weep for the Soviet-Sino split. Stalin is a paradigm of socialism, and it is a damn shame they demonized him after he was gone. But I reject the notion that the Soviet Union only fell because of an overly conservative bureaucracy. Their foreign policy was to be the beacon of socialism the world over, and not only that but to attempt to compete with the USA who was one of the first industrialized countries and also one that wasn't completely savaged by the two world wars. How could you possibly compete militarily on the same footing as well as keep things running smoothly at home, especially when oil is such a big part of your economic basis? It was bound to collapse. China on the other hand developed to socialism the orthodox Marxist way and they went for economy first and are now both a massive consumer economy as well as a military superpower. There's just too much abstraction in your argument. You need a party, you need loyal party members directing the economy, and you need loyal party members to oversee capitalism which is basically a stick of TNT needed to be handled with Marxist sensibilities in order for it not to explode. China's proletariat is in charge of the economy.
>>901509 I was thinking more along the lines of the workers electing officials who would represent them in matters which needed to be voted on, and likewise those officials can be voted out if deemed unsuitable. This way, the proletariat can keep working while not having to vote so much. I'm not always the one replying here, but in my view the USSR did indeed require systemic change, so in a political sense China should not have copied over the USSR's model. Cybernetic planning would of course not solve the country's problems as it still exists in a world largely dominated by capitalism, however would have significantly helped in the usage and distribution of resources… among other things cybernetics is capable of. But again this idea failed to materialize because the bureaucrats thought it was too uncertain, plus they'd lose their jobs — but as for the former, they certainly could have started small and built up as it began to succeed. The United States is dependent on imperialism, and cannot live without it. If China had instead supported the USSR in spreading socialism, then the imperialist economy would falter and this would likely have culminated in the capitalist order collapsing. In America there was major unrest already, over things like the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, the Oil crisis in the 1970s… if America had lost more neocolonies, which would on the other hand be opposing it then instead, there is a very serious change the "mothership" of capitalism would fall, and even become a socialist force. China played too conservatively, assuming good intentions on the part of its leadership, and ironically this caused more damage than had it taken a more active role in the socialist movement.
>>901185 >Proletarians are not magical creatures that can intuit input-output tables across nationwide industry. you must be retarded if you think politburo apparatchiks bothered with input-output tables and shit. technical side of plan drafting was Gosplans responsibility politburo made decisions regarding some indicators, general investment policy i.e. military vs civilian spending etc and at the core of OGAS was a dialog model of sequential optimization, when you feed machine some data, machine makes first approximation, then you feed more data, it makes further approximation etc etc until you arrive at a relative optimum this was intended to primary resolve conflicts between industrial ministries plus you only need to draft general plan once in five years or something, I doubt you really need referendums for yearly plans, as they follow from a more general five-year plan
>>901685 >technical side of plan drafting was Gosplans responsibility I hate to have to break this to you but they are in fact bureaucrats. This is exactly what I mean, you need a specialized bureaucracy if you want to do economic planning. Determining the general direction of a five year plan is entirely trivial, it can be considered as just a black box - does not matter if it is set by gerontocrats or by some kind of referendum. If the thrust of an argument is that the planning did not work because it was too bureaucratic, then the problem is at the level of the planners that you are here absolving, not the policy setting.
>>901748 >I hate to have to break this to you but they are in fact bureaucrats. lol so are you paranoid that evil planners gonna get your toothbrush or something? that's why you have a separate judicial branch duh if planners fuck up and step outside their boundaries how?, you just put them on trial. planners are just cogs, they have no real power, all of the heavy lifting would be done by a machine anyway you might as well fear a solver in your microsoft excel
>>901789 Planners are treated like cogs far too often. Their knowledge and advice should be taken and used much more seriously.
(188.33 KB 992x1164 EikOdMXXgAAbO7n.jpeg)
Just found this gem on Twatter
>>901279 >>Selling a human right for profit. PRODUCTIVE FORCES
>>902359 >>902359 The mental gymnastics of defending China is ridiculous. >China converts to the capitalist mode of production <They had to do it to develop productive forces >China fails to provide its citizens with basic socdem necessities like healthcare and education <Those things don't build productive forces! >China invades a socialist country <They had to do it to look good for the west in order to develop productive forces >China claims almost all of the South China Sea even though it is only geographically close to a small part <It's not imperialism, it's uh… socialist naval development that's necessary to build productive forces >Multi-billionaire becomes the richest man in China by treating a human right like a commodity <So? It builds productive forces
(7.32 MB 530x299 sdfefwefwfWEFG.gif)
>>902394 You're literally the one coming in here getting sperged out. Above, there are people including myself throwing shade on the CPC for not providing universal healthcare programs (by the way, the average lifespan has increased past many of their peer countries that have universal care policies) and free college education. And again, we've talked about why invading Vietnam was necessary above and then you come in and add absolutely nothing to the conversation. And you're so off base about invading Vietnam its just fucking dishonest, lumping talking points you get from this board into some incoherent shitpost. And no, I don't deny that I hate the trappings that come with the state capitalism. I don't deny that its pretty shit that state capitalism allows for a guy like >>901279 can become rich off of bottled water. But you need to recognize that the Chinese citizen has benefits, and continues to believe that the CPC will provide even more improvements in their life. And as China grows in productive power and influence, things like the B&R initiative are going to be a net positive for places that sorely need development including central Asia and Africa. You gotta recognize that China is at least contributing to the collapse of the USA indirectly, the most evil government on this planet. And the most important question, what else is there??? The USSR failed, and their skipping capitalism caused them to fall. What else? Cuba, Vietnam, Laos? All doing things their way, but we're on a timer right now with climate change. So what else? Do you just come in here to sperg out or are you lamenting that millions of Chinese communists decided through democratic centralism and the mass line not to implement your flavor of socialism that many Chinese have benefited from?
(55.76 KB 992x1164 CHILDSACRAFICE.jpg)
>>902356 BASED
Here is an article about Jiang Shigong, sometimes referred to as the "Chinese Dugin". https://palladiummag.com/2020/02/05/jiang-shigongs-vision-of-a-new-chinese-world-order/
>>902359 While it's easy to polemicize like that, two considerations: 1.) I'd like to point out that we are talking bottled water here, not tap water. I think finding 30 brands of bottled water in the store is something I wouldn't really want under socialism. It's a huge waste, both of labor and plastic. 2.) Like it or not, production of clean water still requires labor, in your perfect socialist society it wouldn't be completely unthinkable that someone would have to use their labor voucher on that. And yes, of course I want water to be free, healthcare to be free and education to be free. I'm merely pointing out that all those things require labor, and if you read Marx you'll actually be shocked what he prescribes, for example, he wants students in schools to produce commodities to be sold in the market to refinance the school. It's one of those speeches of Marx which are rightfully regarded as outdated - but I don't see the moral outrage there, so when China says "we simply don't have the healthcare capacities yet to provide free healthcare for everyone of our 1.3 billion citizens but by 2021 we probably will" everybody freaks the fuck out like "THEY'RE NOT EVEN SOCDEM"
>>901789 Quite the opposite I think a well functioning bureaucracy is a sublime thing and I reject the fethishisation of proletarian agency as a magical fix for any economic problem in the USSR. The problem was not that the planning was done by bureaucrats, but that the task set for them with the means at their disposal was probably impossible at the time. Maybe OGAS, cybernetics and Cockshot Though would have/will solve the planning issue in the future, but this remains to be proven. To summarize the thrust of the argument: all hitherto planned economies could only be planned by specialized bureaucratic services, and even then planning an entire economy was in retrospect not yet efficiently possible, hence I find it hard to fault the CPC for making at least a limited market turn. Though honestly, with their love of starting pilot projects in specialized economic zones, maybe the time has come for them to do a pilot project with cybernetic planning in some locations or sectors. For all we know they already are.
>Dismissal of 8 Officers for Disturbance to City and Working People https://3g.163.com/news/article/ECRF10SA0001875P.html Based.
A lot of people forget that for all the progress, a considerable part of the Chinese populace is less affluent than even your typical middle middle class household in developed nations. So yes, there is a long way yet to go for development there. Belarus and Poland probably have higher per capita GDP.
>>903019 >I reject the fethishisation of proletarian agency as a magical fix for any economic problem in the USSR. the crisis of USSR was first and foremost a political crisis, before Gorby market reforms there was no massive economic crisis, no massive shortages, no empty stores the populism of Gorby perestroika was Glasnost as in free speech, people were tired of fucking CPSU geezers, they were tired of censorship it was first and foremost a crisis of political legitimacy you need democratic process not for efficiency first, but for a political legitimacy nobody in the developed world would buy into this proletarian party bullshit, the party is a fucking dead end, it undermines itself and in the end your system gets couped by your own political "proletarian" elite
>>903141 Two ideas here: a class-conscious vanguard takes power, but its successors seem to always degrade into bureaucrats, but; the proletariat are not class-conscious themselves to take the reigns of power. How can a socialist state remain socialist "in spirit"?
>>903124 >Belarus and Poland probably have higher per capita GDP. They do. Many people forget that. They imagine China to be basically be some hi-tech futurist dystopia when a large section of the country still awaits basic capital accumulation to lift them up.
>>903273 >How can a socialist state remain socialist "in spirit"? socialism in practice - state planning I'm counting on inertia of the system. Even in soviet case when dismantling of planning economy was already at fool speed, it took major effort to finish it off. It took private banking etc and resulting absolute economic collapse. So suppose you have a planned state owned economy, and after some major planning fuck up stupid plebs get duped by some magic market populist to go full market. The next logical step is to privatize state owned industries. But who would buy them? Who even has that amount of money/labor vouchers? Do you think people are THAT stupid they would give for free state enterprises into private hands? In soviet case it took shady banking and voucher manipulation to basically give for free state property. And do you think pendulum of popular opinion wouldn't swing the other way when inevitable economic collapse starts? Fucking old geezer CPRF won 95 elections, it was THAT bad. The most plausible variant is that some enterprises would get turned into coops, but I think it would end in an inevitable conflict between state-wide plan and local profit interests of coops. I find it more plausible that popular opinion would swing to "fuck coops for undermining plan", than to "yay lets turn everything into coops!"
>>902394 the strawman is strong with this one
>>903273 Syndicalist style ML parties. Check out the Zapatista Caracoles.
>>903480 >Syndicalist style ML parties Literally not a thing. Read a fucking book. >Zapatista Literally not MLs.
>>903400 How exactly did Soviet "shady banking" let privatization happen? Did they even have labor vouchers? What exactly is China doing, supposedly, that prevents it from suffering the same brain death as the Soviet Union?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/25/xi-china-climate-change-saved-the-world%E2%80%A8/ Interesting that FP published this. FP is a mixed bag, I think they’re a pretty good outlet a lot of the time because you will get some very unbiased reporting from them like this that actually steps back from an exclusively American self-interest perspective. The article suggests that both Xi announcing his definitive climate targets as well as China’s continued reporting on its own status on meeting climate obligations is acting as a signal to Europe to come sit with the more stable and serious global power rather than the USA. Of course, FP is publishing this as a bit of a warning about how the US political situation is causing it to be side-lined (a story we have heard plenty in the past 4 years), but it also seems to be crediting the Chinese state with being very responsible and rational. It is almost straddling the line between conceding that China is acting more like a stable world leader than the US, and simply trying to conjure this image to spook a US readership into understanding how important it is for the US to get its act together or else it will lose its claim to legitimate political superiority in an actual meritocratic removal.
An angle I haven’t seen very much in pointing out the cynical realpolitik strategy behind Xinjiang stuff is how the US has maintained relations with other Central Asian states despite their own crimes against Muslims. I’ve seen plenty of the “this is hypocrisy, look at the War on Terror and the border camps” and stuff like that, but not much of the apples to apples comparison of the US response to China’s neighbors. This is basically a more Chomsky like approach of just saying, look at what they aren’t telling you. For instance, the US has consistently sent economic aid to Uzbekistan and invested in the country even though Uzbekistan has restrictive laws on state sanctioned mosques, and at various points has actually been accused of not only imprisoning and torturing Muslims for breaking laws regulating the Muslim Faith (like conditions restricting pilgrimage to Mecca), but has also been accused of boiling Muslim dissidents alive. Tajikistan has also both made a prominent Islamic political party illegal, and jailed and tortured Muslims, and forced Muslims to shave their beards. America actually sent direct military aid to Tajikistan in its counter-terrorism operations when its own high state officials defected to ISIS, even though the US knew that Tajikistan was torturing and repressing Muslims under the same auspices of “counter-terrorism”. And this was happening as recently as 2015, under Obama. The US media and state department have blatantly ignored many of these abuses and had no particular push to sanction them as human rights catastrophes, and the foreign policy think tanks were even advising the US to take a neutral stance on human rights issues in order to continue having strong relations with the Central Asian post-soviet states. No surprise that they take such a neutral policy position of course, because they openly acknowledge the utility in doing so is countering Russian and Chinese dominance in the region. I think it is important to attempt to spread realistic geopolitical perspectives among average people when talking about this stuff. Too many people are trapped in the moralist perspective and believe when they take a position on US action, it is motivated by morality. And they may be right for themselves, but the US is amoral, and so they aren’t actually endorsing an entity that has the same motivations. They’re effectively asking a lion to save a gazelle. It has no particular interest in the gazelle, it is just staking out its own hunting grounds. And maybe even after knowing this they just become more self-conscious American chauvinists, but then at least you are living in reality.
>>903658 >Did they even have labor vouchers? no, not labor vouchers, but the so-called privatization vouchers, that gave holder a share in an enterprise basically the scheme was like this: economic collapse and hyperinflation - no food to eat - trade vouchers for food and necessities - accumulate vouchers - voila! you're a capitalist now >How exactly did Soviet "shady banking" let privatization happen? with the repeal of the state monopoly on foreign trade and the law on cooperatives you could establish "cooperative banks" and engage in foreign trade majority of cooperatives were engaged in reselling of production produced by state enterprises, majority raw materials and in general low value-added goods. Buy cheap state subsidized price controlled goods or just bribe management for a cut - sell them to other countries - PROFIT profit margins were HUGE there was also some aviso fuckery later there were so-called collateral auctions where the state would take loans in private banks with state enterprises as a collateral. The loans were never paid back of course. basically state bureaucrats would just massively undervalue state property for whatever reason for a cut or for "killing communism" etc >What exactly is China doing, supposedly, that prevents it from suffering the same brain death as the Soviet Union? well, china kinda did it gradually, special economic zones and all that, but I don't know china situation very well they have creeping privatization as far as I can tell
Is China susceptible to the middle income trap? Now that they're outsourcing the cheap labor once done by Chinese to Africa, is it a point of weakness to be dependent on foreigners for cheap labor? What if there's some kind of revolution in those countries and suddenly they don't want do produce stuff for China anymore?
>>904118 The middle income trap is getting stuck in low end manufacturing. What you describe is the opposite of the middle income trap. However, we see that the US is embargoing Chinese semiconductor manufacturing so there is pressure from outside to confine China in low end manufacturing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya1eq5L4b3A >Live: ROK hands over remains of 117 Chinese volunteer soldiers to China
>>904126 >However, we see that the US is embargoing Chinese semiconductor manufacturing so there is pressure from outside to confine China in low end manufacturing. China invests lavishly in homegrown chips since 2015 and has doubled down in 2019, their plan is to catch up in semiconductor technology with the rest of the world in 2025. Will the increased competition result in faster tech advancement ?
>>905486 Why are they crying? Isn't that the job of a soldier?
>>905486 Is it supposed to be a really sad song or some shit?
>>905486 They're not being deployed to the border, more likely they're retiring from active duty, hence the ceremonial red sashes.
>>905568 >They're not being deployed to the border, more likely they're retiring from active duty, hence the ceremonial red sashes. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4014259 https://disp.cc/b/163-cLtB On Sunday, Pakistani comedian Zaid Hamid uploaded a video showing several PLA recruits crying on a bus as they are allegedly "transferred to Ladakh Border to face Indian Army [sic]." Hamid then wrote that China's one-child policy is "seriously hurting the motivation level of our Chinese brothers." He then added, "We Pakistani support you China. Stay Brave." Although Pakistan is an ally of China, Hamid appeared to be poking fun at the tender, green recruits. The footage was originally posted on the WeChat page of Fuyang City Weekly, but it was soon deleted. The original post shows 10 fresh recruits from Fuyang City's Yingzhou District in China's Anhui Province. All of the new troops were reportedly college students, and five of them had "proactively volunteered to serve in Tibet," which borders the Ladakh region where the bloody Galwan Valley skirmish took place in June of this year. The video was reportedly filmed at the Fuyang Railway Station as they prepared to head to a military camp in Hebei Province. In the video, the soldiers can be seen sobbing hysterically as they struggle to sing the words to the PLA song "Green Flowers in the Army" (軍中綠花). A Chinese netizen who goes by the handle @waynescene reposted the video on Sunday and wrote "They were told that they would be going to the front lines after they got on the bus. The cannon fodder are crying!"
>>905618 >taiwannews [X] doubt
>>905555 Maybe they just like the song.
>>905555 Checked
(151.06 KB 640x480 IMG_2721.JPG)
Can anyone here translate Chinese? I picked up this Chinese medal dated 1936 today. I believe its a United Front medal awarded to both Communists and Nationalists but I don't know exactly.
>>897861 This but capitalism exists and the less you stray from it the less you can trade with the world, which China still needs to do. It's just bread and circus, those factories really are suicidality depressing.
>>906371 that's vietnam
>>906374 Thailand, you're thinking Thailand
Is there much info about China's space program? Most news about space travel is focused on SpaceX at the moment.
I found the source of the "by 2050" stuff. It's Goldman Sachs! > “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/history/moments/2001-brics.html
>>906286 第八路軍抗戰傷員 榮譽章 抗日英雄
>>906508 >Medal of Honor for the Wounded of the Eighth Route Army Anti-Japanese hero Holy fuck I was worried it would be some Nationalist China shit. I hit the jackpot.
>>906643 Nice malware link, glowie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IfV4fwACVY <Chinese-built power plant stabilizes Iraq's electricity supply amid COVID-19 crisis >B-b-but China is imperialist. <Daily work of proving that anti-dengists they are retarded: CHECK.
>>907839 pls do not feed the dengoid/antidengoid shitflinging that ruins this thread semiweekly if you can help it thanks
>>907839 >we built railroads for them bro >we gave em universities n shiet they're benefiting from this
>china did good thing, everything china does good >no, china did bad thing, everything china do bad In china, there are not different people with different motives and different actions. There is no autonomy, there is just china, everything and everyone in china is china.
(88.60 KB 300x424 CrewsCrew.jpg)
>>908736 based and chinapilled
(22.02 KB 540x214 hololive.png)
love this logo
When will China let Mayo join the CPC?
>>905618 >taiwannews Bro you're not even trying.
>>901221 >Castro made some spookily prescient predictions Mind sharing some?
I'm thankful that China isn't being infected by western idpol baizuo bullshit that plagues the western left. How have they managed to avoid it so well? It gives me hope that it's possible to have socialism without devolving into shit like saying "read theory" is ableist. Seems all western marxist want to do is have a contest to see who can hate white people and straight people the most. China got some discrimination against white people (and other non-chinese) going on. But at least they're not trying to destroy white people like baizuo.
>>909630 >I'm thankful that China isn't being infected by western idpol baizuo bullshit that plagues the western left. I hope you're not serious with this.
>>909643 Communities like chapo spend more time discussing trans rights than actual Marxism. If you tried to bring that up with a Chinese person they'd just think you were a weirdo. And the average Chinese knows way more about Marxism than some white lib anarkiddie
>>909630 >Seems all western marxist want to do is have a contest to see who can hate white people and straight people the most. t. browses reactionary sites based on circlejerking about outrage
>>909648 Because they are Westerners who lead a sheltered, comfortable life. They don't need economic reforms right now so their only revolution is trans rights, minority oppression, etc. (mostly americans)
>>909651 Have you never joined a leftist discord that has a billion roles for your pronouns, bans people for using the slur "retard" and general chat is just "HRT chat"? Cause that's the majority of leftist space discords. I'm just glad China avoids all this idpol shit.
>>909659 I'd never used shitcord, and I'm a zoomer.
>>909659 Why don't you stop hanging out on fbi.gov and spend more time posting here then. We have better threads and less garbage.
>>909664 Yeah I'm thinking this place is way better than the places I've tried to talk about China before.
>>909664 Say whatever you will, but that is the public face of the american 'left' these days lmao
>>909659 >discord listen buddy listen closely YOU'RE ON AN ANONYMOUS IMAGEBOARD fucking zoomers with their backdoored smartphones and google apps
(45.36 KB 600x300 19861807612093.png)
If everyone turns trans then who births the child? I wouldn't want my state to die off because everyone got hooked up on HRT.
>>909659 >I'm just glad China avoids all this idpol shit. China probably has the most extensive affirmative action programs in the world.
(493.40 KB 1656x954 Eir-zXlWoAQvUHx.jpg)
(371.22 KB 1446x1033 Eir-zXoXgAEK47f.jpg)
(284.02 KB 1405x476 Eir-zXqXcAElr3d.jpg)
Also it's my understanding that in addition to preferential college admissions, ethnic minority regions that are not up to the level of certain development targets are literally not taxed by the central government to allow those regions to reinvest the revenue internally. Like, imagine majority poor black areas in the U.S. not paying any taxes and having the government require -- by law -- that the local government is made up of black officials. White people in America would just about declare civil war over a semester of college worth of reparations cash and then they call China a fascist country or whatever.
There would be constant screeching about the great replacement if the Chinese policy for minority groups was implemented there, considering that they do the equivalent of forbidding the majority from having more than one kid while the certain protected minority groups do not have the limit.
>>909752 Haha yeah. Sorry white people, one baby only, although you get two if you live in a rural area. Have any more and you get fined and sterilized. Black people get two, three if they live in a rural area. The U.S. would nuke itself if that happened.
>>909752 You can have 2 now. Interesting white people married to Han don't need to follow this policy or the previous 1 child policy
>>909792 You could always have more, just need to pay the fine for extras.
>>909795 Yeah but like legally you can have 2 and both can have a hukou now
Americans can't even deal with wearing a mask they'd implode if told not to breed
(546.66 KB 1722x1722 fb4eef656619fdec7f8957ee16a2054c.jpg)
I cannot stand the obsession with China anymore. It's like I'm surrounded with drones and schizophreniacs who just can't shut the fuck up about China. I'm slowly going insane as well. Apparently the latest online panic is about some Chinese fans being upset that one of those fucking "virtual youtubers" said "T*iwan" which literally means that Le Winnie the Pooh is going to take away your anime waifus. I'm not even a Dengist but I've taken to saying "yes and that's a good thing, based CCP" just to piss those people off. But it only helps so much. There's definitely some big time manufacturing of consent for open war against China, it scares me but what scares me the most is how willingly and giddily people go along with it. I used to wonder "how could people in the past centuries believe in all that ridiculous nationalist propaganda nonsense like 'destroy this mad brute'?" and yet here it is just under our noses. China china china china china. Anyone else feeling like this?
>>910008 Why does it bother you personally? Are you not old enough to remember the Bush Wars? This has always existed, just the enemies change. Stay calm and don't let them get you mentally.
>>910013 Tbh, there was sizeable opposition to Bush-era militarism, meanwhile today even so-called 'leftists' are vociferous in their hatred for China and if you support China or even approach the topic moderately you're considered some kind of omega-tankie. I think we might be headed to something way bigger than Iraq here, some WW1-tier hysteria.
Would it be cringe for a white immigrant in China to get involved with Chinese nationalist celebrations?
>>910038 No, in fact there were many foreign volunteers who fought in the Chinese Nationalist army during the Sino Japanese War.
>tfw China has more affirmative action than others but they still call you rayycis
>>910054 That's not really what I meant
>>910008 CHYNA
>>909713 they avoid the ineffective neuroticism of western idpol. they treat disparate outcomes like a problem to be solved rather than a primordial national sin that must be atoned for
>>910107 Dengists talk about western idpol more than the rest of the board. So much for avoiding talking about western idpol.
>>910129 Are you blind? The whole board is idpol board.
>>910008 https://bbs.nga.cn/read.php?tid=23508046 Based Chinese otaku left trolling libertard from west & Taiwan
>Huaiyin Normal University put it a handbook saying gays are unnatural, destabilise society and do drugs >Guangxi university said female students can get raped less if they dress modestly Based China?
>>908689 What's that video originally from?
>>910038 When in rome, do as the romans do dog it's a universal rule
Why did China go to war with India initially? Weren't they on friendly terms?
>>909659 >Have you never joined a leftist discord that has a billion roles for your pronouns, bans people for using the slur "retard" and general chat is just "HRT chat"? Can't say I have. Dumb zoomer. >>909713 Yes but they are not being faggots about it.
(78.35 KB 480x640 dengxiaoping.jpg)
I'm actually completely Dengpilled. Before, I understood Marxism, but thought simple reform ala Sweden would be enough, how wrong I was. I can't believe I never understood the genius of Deng Xiaoping thought, which was continued and expanded through with the Three Represents theory, and is now concluding in Xi Jinping thought. I've now read Deng and Jiang's collected works twice each, and the Governance of China more than I can count. Before this I'd read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Luxemburg and some other Marxist theorists but they just didn't seem right. Something too childish about completely tearing down capitalism and replacing it with an entirely new mode of production, despite my agreement with the Marxian view of history. Marxism seemed to me to be more about destroying the old than building the new. This delusion ended when I read Deng. Through Socialism with Chinese characteristics, China has eradicated poverty, homelessness and illiteracy. The capitalists are represented through the party to keep them from being compradors, and are kept in line, with Xi Jinping thought now nationalizing and controlling the private rapidly. The genius of Deng's theory is keeping the dictatorship of the workers while also using the benefits of global capitalism to build the revolution. America's fate was sealed when Deng inherited a broken China and built it into a superpower. LONG LIVE DENG XIAOPING THOUGHT! LONG LIVE CHINA!
>>910653 wow is this the famous Dengoid the am*ricans keep talking about?
>>910653 The motto of Dengism: >Socialism, good in theory but not in practice. In practice we need capitalism because socialism doesn't work.
I've been reading through some of Deng's speeches and stuff, and he was so fucking obviously against liberalization of the economy. What the fuck happened?
>>910786 Jiang and Hu happened. Xi is more left than those though.
>>910809 I thought Hu was the left wing turn from Jiang
What's up with all the anti deng threads these last couple of weeks? It almost feel organized
>>910815 >fill catalog with dumb threads >post neoliberal talking points everywhere >insult half the board constantly >moderation biased in your favor It's a mystery
>>910812 Jiang is a pretty low bar. I'm pretty sure he's under house arrest now. Look how they manhandled him onto Tiananmen during the 70th anniversary of the PRC parade last year.
>>910815 People have their own reasons. A lot of people see that for whatever reason, Dengist China as it is now will fail to be the bringer of socialism to the world. Some people notice that its milestones are way too slow in terms of climate change (e.g. all the climate change shit that's going to happen by 2050 as a result of capitalism), while others doubt whether China really will be able to "flip the switch" to capitalism, given how ingrained capitalism is within the economy. Other reasons for the opposition to Dengism might include the observations that China is really friendly with Western countries, who it even sells weapons to so that they may conduct imperialism. In the case of Israel, China also has close military ties and does military exercises with them frequently, so its easy to see how people might come to doubt the socialist quality of Dengist China.
>>910839 >>post neoliberal talking points what are neoliberal talking points exactly
>>910653 is this a new copypasta
>>910852 Can't even tell if you people are constantly playing dumb or are actually retarded. Go read some of muh anti-deng threads for the nth variation of this conversation.
>>910852 Just ignore anti Dengists they suffer from a bunch of serious delusions.
<Pompeo announces world coalition to fight against China.
>>910008 Honestly man, you need to get off of these forums and disconnect from the internet for at least a little bit. Take up reading your favorite fiction, walk outside more. >dengist this dengist that dengism deng china deng deng A complete troll post >>910653 and the retards >>910686 >>910722 who will believe these people are genuine and well meaning when they say outrageous shit because it fits their view of whatever the fuck a "dengist" is. This shit constitutes half the fucking dialog on this board about China and at least three or four times a week shits this fucking thread up.
>>910846 I remember to argue with a brazilian leftist that he hates China because China would buy meat from brazil making it expensive as fuck. He clearly lost his shit when I told him that he should blame his local kulaks, landowners for not producing more meat to reduce the price, taking the opportunity that they would receive hard currency to invest in advanced technological equipment to make meat production cheaper. But hey, let's blame CHYNAH.
>>910949 Wtf does that have anything to do with this imageboard
>>910962 >desu-desu-baitsuru.
>>910962 By the way, you better find yourself an exit door in this chan and get out.
>>910986 >I talked to a random Brazilian dude so this applies to all of humanity
What books can I read to understand Socialism With Chinese Characteristics?
>>910947 I am not a China hater, I >>910686 was making a joke about how dengists don't actually exist. It is funny how they psyop themselves.
>>911003 I wasn't cherrypicking, and I didn't say it was all humanity. Lol, are you too butthurted because I shared a personal experience of one single person? You are not better than the brazilian leftist, then.
>>911127 No, but your point has no correlation to the one you have quoted.
>>911137 t. illiterate
(321.72 KB 1080x1018 IMG_20200928_202253.jpg)
(250.32 KB 1080x662 IMG_20200928_210308.jpg)
>>910815 Produvtive forces bro...socialism by 2078
>>911152 Superpower by 2020
>>910949 >>911144 >What's up with these threads on leftypol? <Anyway I was talking to this Brazilian dude and...
>>911152 China Intermediate Socialism By 2078
(338.48 KB 1016x774 sadCatInKettle.jpg)
>>911197 >>911144 pls, anons, just kiss and make up. there is no need for this kerfuffle
(120.07 KB 1080x602 IMG_20200928_215204.jpg)
>dengoids will defend this
>>911263 Some Stasi level stuff, that #prayforchina
>>911197 That wasn't the quoted post, and it follows the idea. Seriously, are you that butthurted? Are you a leftist brazilian?
>>911276 Stasi was based though.
(26.50 KB 720x631 chad-fidel-si.jpg)
>>911276 Stasi was based too
(230.67 KB 1080x600 IMG_20200928_220456.jpg)
>>911276 Pretty sure chinese people are total psychopaths at this point. I'm afraid the west will adopt a similar system.
>>911286 >>911290 I cannot believe my eyes. Oh my stars.
(175.88 KB 1022x688 1563578785054.jpg)
>>911310 go back or kill yourself
>>911304 >implying the number of security cameras per person in the UK and U.S. isn't higher.
(121.73 KB 1100x1078 50290f926bb3f76b7d000000.jpg)
(396.98 KB 1200x1200 Really bro.jpg)
>MFW Dengists won't reply to this post about China's blatant imperialism
>>911485 >no investment in botswana >the country in which warren won the democrats abroad primary vote based
>>911497 They're going to phase in the investment over a trial period :^)
>>911005 Deng and Xi are the only actual Marxists who have led new-China so probably them.
>>911516 >Is China the new imperialist force in Africa? Yes.
(202.61 KB 381x424 1449182008624.jpg)
>>911485 imperialism is when you build things and the more you build the bigger of an imperialist you are
>>911532 >Why do the Indians complain we built them trains n shyt t. British Empire
>>911516 >>911520 Ok I see their argument, China doesn't "dominate" Africa so they're not imperialist even though they literally admit above: >If we’re going to understand whether or not China is imperialist, it’s a good idea to agree what imperialism is, since the word suffers from fairly widespread misinterpretation. Based on the characteristics of imperialism outlined in Lenin’s classic study, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, many conclude that China is an imperialist country. After all, it has several enormous companies that could reasonably be described as monopolies; it has a handful of very large (state-owned) banks that have significant influence on investment; and it’s increasingly engaged in the ‘export of capital’, investing in business operations around the world. 1. China does have foreign military presence like in Djibouti and Sri Lanka which is pretty obviously "domination" 2. In the article they literally admit Chinese trade relationships with Africa are uneven. Just because China offers better loans and doesn't have military bases doesn't mean they're not imperialist. It's obviously the economic domination of African countries for Porky's benefit, even if it's more mutually beneficial than the West does in Africa.
>>911539 What you don't understand, little ultra, is that China's imperialism is necessary and dialectical
>>911539 Also in Imperialism by Lenin: >The principal spheres of investment of British capital are the British colonies, which are very large also in America (for example, Canada), not to mention Asia, etc. In this case, enormous exports of capital are bound up most closely with vast colonies, of tile importance of which for imperialism I shall speak later. In the case of France the situation is different. French capital exports are invested mainly in Europe, primarily in Russia (at least ten thousand million francs). This is mainly loan capital, government loans, and not capital invested in industrial undertakings. Unlike British colonial imperialism, French imperialism might be termed usury imperialism. In the case of Germany, we have a third type; colonies are inconsiderable, and German capital invested abroad is divided most evenly between Europe and America. >The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world. Did France have military bases in Russia?
>>911539 stop pretending like building a fucking factory with cooperation from a sovereign government is the same as sailing a gunboat up the river and declaring a place yours, you utter retard Lenin was writing about pure colonial empires, and when he mentioned semi-colonial countries he was talking about a imitative list of places that were being partitioned at the time. it is pure sophistry to pretend any parallel exists today
>>911548 >>911547 >>911539 just read the damn thing
>>911554 >stop pretending like building a fucking factory with cooperation from a sovereign government is the same as sailing a gunboat up the river and declaring a place yours, you utter retard Critical support for French resource extraction in Africa, the sovereign governments agreed to it. >Lenin was writing about pure colonial empires, and when he mentioned semi-colonial countries he was talking about a imitative list of places that were being partitioned at the time. it is pure sophistry to pretend any parallel exists today See: >>911548 The Russian government agreed to it and it wasn't colonial imperialism, therefore it wasn't imperialism. Critical support for France.
(77.50 KB 600x389 0023ae9885da12bb194304.jpg)
>>911520 >>911485 China in Africa Reading List <Chinese and African laborers work at the construction site of the TAZARA railway. In the 1970s, China sent experts, specialists and about 15,000 workers to build the strategic railway, which linked Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to central Zambia. This short reading list compiles articles, papers and books on China and Africa's relationship that challenges hegemonic Western tropes of Chinese "neocolonialism" and “debt-trap diplomacy.” As these readings make clear, Western capitalist finance remains dominant on the African content, where Chinese state and private investment remains a relative newcomer. While much of Chinese investment in Africa is guided by private commercial interests, these readings also show that Chinese state-owned investments provide unique opportunities for African labor, environmental, and national development interests that provides an alternative to Western predatory investment. Articles >Bräutigam, Deborah. “China in Africa is not “Neo-Colonialism.” The Washington Post. April 12, 2018. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6cKaxfiRHsJntxatGYGlmedLSvL9gKV/view?usp=sharing >Bräutigam, Deborah. “Challenging the Myths of Chinese Land Grabs in Africa.” The China Africa Project. November 6, 2015. https://chinaafricaproject.com/podcasts/podcast-china-africa-food-agriculture-deborah-brautigam/ >Brown, Nino. “Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa.” Liberation School. May 14, 2019. https://liberationschool.org/five-imperialist-myths-about-chinas-role-in-africa/ >Martinez, Carlos. “Is China the New Imperialist force in Africa?” Invent the Future. October 8, 2018. https://www.invent-the-future.org/2018/10/is-china-the-new-imperialist-force-in-africa/ >Moore, Gyude W. “Africa’s Position in the New Cold War.” The China Africa Project. August 7, 2020. https://chinaafricaproject.com/2020/08/07/w-gyude-moore-africas-position-in-the-new-cold-war/ <Former Liberian Minister of Public Works W. Gyude Moore unpacks the hypocritical fear mongering of the Western powers when it comes to Chinese infrastructure investment in Africa, which Moore argues better aligns with African development objectives than any Western alternative. As Moore writes: “If China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries, China is also our friend.” >Qiao Collective. “China’s Response to 2020 Guangdong Anti-African discrimination.” June 3, 2020. [Twitter thread] https://twitter.com/qiaocollective/status/1268236184855216128?s=20 Research Papers >Bräutigam, Deborah. “A Critical Look at Chinese ‘Debt-trap Diplomacy’: The Rise of a Meme.” Area Development and Policy 5 No. 1 (2020): 1-14. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NfOtluCYpTj3eh4NKEhpwpJ0Pt94jTgw/view >Bodomo, Adams. “Is China Colonizing Africa? Africa-China Relations in a Shifting Global Economic Governance System.” In Global Economic Governance and Human Development, edited by Simone Raudino and Arlo Poletti. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2018. [full PDF] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OVF6JSGvcvAOLzBsFwH6PWgYKYgByAJ9/view >Chatelard, Solange. “Unpacking the ‘New Scramble of Africa’: A Critical and Local Perspective of Chinese Activities in Zambia.” In States, Regions and the Global System: Europe and Northern Asia-Pacific in Globalised Governance, edited by Christoph Schuck and Reimund Seidelmann. 2011. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pmyLBD6F5lys-UmP4yW8O37GZbTV2cP/view <This paper reviews the academic and political debate over China’s so-called ‘New Scramble of Africa’ in the 21st century, using local perspectives of Chinese activities in Zambia to highlight cultural, political, and economic dynamics that challenge the monolithic depiction of Chinese neocolonialism. >Deych, Tat’yana L. “China in Africa: a case of "neo-colonialism" or win-win strategy?” Outlines of Global Transformations 11 No. 5 (2018): 63-82. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17e5XUs6s3Re3wboQnYfkFtlYWW5IGkUU/view Books >Bräutigam, Deborah. Will Africa Feed China? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. https://www.amazon.com/Will-Africa-China-Deborah-Brautigam/dp/019939685X#:~:text=In%20Will%20Africa%20Feed%20China,realities%20behind%20the%20media%20headlines.&text=Yet%20to%20feed%20its%20own,from%20subsistence%20to%20commercial%20agriculture. >Lee, Ching Kwan. The Specter of Global China: Politics, Labor, and Foreign Investment in Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017. [full pdf] https://drive.google.com/file/d/18YSin_kYvf8tfUZQFmUcsEW4YQskusQy/view?usp=sharing >Liang Haoguang and Zhang Yaojun. The Theoretical System of Belt and Road. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B57gV5i0-esnyYD5edu1LsqaZ96CEJsV/view >Monson, Jamie. Africa's Freedom Railway: How a Chinese Development Project Changes Lives and Livelihoods in Tanzania. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. [PDF of chapters] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aTF7SOnELE6s-IKWv7xihVRcFpW7QKko?usp=sharing <This book details the history of the first major development project between China and Tanzania and Zambia, begun in 1967. The TAZARA railway represented a Third World construction project designed to provide participating nations with economic independence from apartheid Rhodesia and South Africa. TAZARA is often invoked today as a symbol of Sino-African friendship, and the principles of anti-colonialism, sovereignty, and national determination outlined during this project sets the tone of Chinese international development projects to this day. >Van Ness, Peter. Revolution and Chinese Foreign Policy: Peking’s Support for Wars of National Liberation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. https://books.google.com/books?cad=0&id=aufIKy9Ufl8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>911584 Ok cool I'll check some of these out but like... >While much of Chinese investment in Africa is guided by private commercial interests, Chinese state-owned investments provide unique opportunities for African labor, environmental, and national development interests that provides an alternative to Western predatory investment. You say it right here, Chinese porkies are exploiting Africa. Just because the state owned industries (supposedly) aren't doesn't make China not imperialist.
How big is the Maoist movement in modern China? I assume its hard to find out due to political silencing in the country.
I have a genuine question for Anons here. So from what I've read about China, it seems that the Party and state owned industries definitely are at least somewhat Marxist and run by and for the people. But then you have all the privately owned industries with suicide nets and the 300 billionaires in China, what is the Party currently doing to suppress the power of the rising capitalist class? Because it seems to me Jiang Zemin letting them into the party killed any chance of long term Socialism in China.
>>911606 Zoomer age: You have small-ish groups in every larger university and city, but still fringe. Rest are nationalist-developmentalists. You have some neoliberal cucks too, as well as the occasional radfem and Confucianist monarchist LARPer. There is a bigger variety here than in other cohorts but of course the vast majority are tacit CPC supporters, yet somewhat apolitical. They are more nationalist than the millenials. Millenial age: By and large an absolutely apolitical bunch, care more about consooming about politics. Care a bit more about Western culture than Gen Z does, products of the cucked Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao ages. Gen X age: Eager Dengoids, support the status quo, more critical of Mao. Boomer age: Some are reminiscing over the Maoist era. [I am using the Western generation names, the Chinese generations are different than ours but for easier understanding I am saying it this way]
>>911584 Nice work comrade. I remain to be impressed by the research online tankies do in comparison to the people who constantly malign them.
>>911705 >Nice work comrade. I remain to be impressed by the research online tankies do in comparison to the people who constantly malign them. He copy and pasted the Qiao Collective my man lmao
>>911705 You should read the sources before congratulating them. Some of them are very inadequate; I agree with the thesis that calling China "imperialist" is a misnomer but for instance “A Critical Look at Chinese ‘Debt-trap Diplomacy’: The Rise of a Meme.” is not a serious study. Its argumentation is highly biased and ideological. Many of the sources are of similarly low quality, which isn't surprising because in this alone Deborah Bräutigam appears as an author four times...
>>911715 Nah you see the more sources you post the truthier your argument is
The Anti-Chinese propaganda is in full swing and of course Rad-libs are eating it all up on the social medias. Only reason on there is to observe like a scientist would the rad-lib in their natural habitat screaming and coosumming everything the state department feeds them. This time the fucking social media is in a frenzy is of course about the losers of the Chinese Civil War on an island in exile because Mao didn't finish the job like he should have. People are saying its a country after some company suspends some employees for speaking about the puppet state being a legit country. Of course now the Anti-Chinese propaganda is in full swing and it makes me sick. Sure I don't agree with the Dengist ideas, but god damn I will at least defend PRC from American Imperialism. This is really getting out of fucking hand I get annoyed attempt to provide the actual history of the civil war only to be called a shill or whatever thing they can think of at the time. This is the reason why the Western world needs a cultural revolution.
>>911866 What did you expect? How do you think being a communist in the USA during the Cold War was? Buckle up, kiddo.
(502.02 KB 1067x1425 IMG_20200929_010615.jpg)
>>911334 It's more complicated in China. They already deployed their first terminator prototypes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bl_cyYHwNQ&feature=emb_title Recording from Tiananmen. At 8:35 you can see the "protestors" have guns
>>911866 Why defend either China or the USA? China has a lot going for it, including an economy growing like 3× faster than America's (which it is basically on par with now) and its Belt and Road project is just going to make it even more powerful. America on the other hand, is a declining empire… save the critical support for the occasion where China is seriously threatened (which is an extremely unlikely circumstance given how even a boots-on-the-ground invasion will fail against it while being a massive blowback against the invader).
>>912730 >Why defend China Because the defense of China flows out of a correct understanding of reality and an interest in proletarian power.
>>912814 >correct understanding of reality lol
>>912730 >Why defend China why not defend China ? >>912819 from imperial doormat to a world power in less then 100 years, CPC does understand reality.
>>912730 At this point to me it is more useful as a jumping off point for media criticism and attempting to expose liberal hegemony. I’m not that interested in defending China’s honor, but more in using the issue to attempt to reveal to people in what ways they are manipulated and for what purposes.
(84.65 KB 1200x801 Tianhe-2.jpg)
(346.27 KB 1268x664 Sunway-TaihuLight.png)
China has Sunway Taihulight and Tianhe-2, the most powerful supercomputers in the world. All they have to do is hook them up with central planning and Cockshott utopia confirmed
>>913206 The problem of planning is one of epistemology and control not of raw computational power. You don't need a 100 petaflop supercomputer to do the calculations, you need to adroitly cohere all processes of production and all the enterprises into a network capable of receiving and sending the information accurately and consistently, and you need accurate information about when something goes wrong and where. The political will to do this is hard to muster even in a country that is nominally overseen by the communist party. Neat aesthetics in those pics though, very cyberpunk.
>>913224 This. Tianhe-2 can be better utilized doing computational modeling of nuclear explosions. The people's nuclear explosions of course.
>>913224 So not just supercomputers, but mainframes and network infrastructure. You can't centralize it completely.
Anyone who either just "defends" or "attacks" China is a retard. You should do both, same with everything. It's not a baseball game where you root for one team.
>>913231 Right, you can't centralize literally everything, the planners don't have know every little thing, just the stuff that's important to how planning is done. The dichotomy of planning between decentralization and centralization is basically rooted in ignorance and a failure of application, some things will be centralized, others not.
>>913271 >TF >TP
(43.39 KB 571x373 redwine.jpg)
Any other pro-PRC internet spaces or organizations to join aside from this general and r/Sino? I'm not gonna use reddit, I don't like the website style. Any discords, irl parties, or whatever?
>>913483 And I should add that I prefer if they're more on the side of not censoring people critical of China. Similar to this. But if they do then idc that much
>>913483 /r/sino sucks they'll ban any opinion they don't like and it's run by the /r/aznidentity and /r/hapas incel clique
>>913483 Lemmy.ml is always a thing. I got banned from there for saying China is revisionist so they’re pretty pro-china
>>913483 /r/Sino is a Chinese nationalist shithole
(133.87 KB 786x432 tiapei.png)
kek
>>912943 This. It's also why I bother commenting on mainstream media outlets at all, you can reach much more people and the western narratives are generally crumbling so it's easy to get them to question their views.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419061120/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2781507.html someone actually archived the /prc/ thread on 8chan multiple times a day for several months >764 captures
how exactly is china socialist?
>>914124 It's led by a communist party for starters.
>>913236 The other side root for one team and if you root for both teams because muh both sides, you're gonna get stuck with the losing team
>>914127 then why is there a capitalist class? it goes against the core definition of socialism
>>914124 China is left Gaullist and that's a good thing
>>914133 The bourgeois still exist during the DotP
>>914133 Marx correctly postulated that communism can only arise from a highly productive capitalist society.
>>914143 so china isn't socialist then?
>>913737 Chinese nationalism is literally based on a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse and multicultural melting pot, it's not "Han nationalism" or whatever, just compare this with the reactionary/chauvinistic nationalism of the imperialist countries.
>>914169 >nationalism is based when you do it under a red flag cringe
>>914173 Nationalism isn't based or whatever bit it is a necessary rallying cry in a country that got colonially partitioned and destroyed during the whole 19th century.
>>914147 It's on it's way, if course this might mean the proletariat has to take the party and the state hostage should the class antagonisms erupt, or it might be the party moving in a new direction as global supply chains break down. I don't know because I don't live there.
A guestion for dengroids. In a new world war would you "critically" support china, or would call for a revolutionary defeatism?
>>913483 >I'm not gonna use reddit, I don't like the website style putting "old." before the link helps a lot, e.g.: http://old.reddit.com/r/Sino
>>913224 Is building reliable networks a problem in 2020?
>>914143 Where did he say that? Only?
>>914244 Ignoring the provocative phrasing, I don't think China is an imperialist country, so revolutionary defeatism wouldn't make sense as it isn't an inter-imperialist conflict. My stance would be same as the imperialists waged war on revolutionary Russia, against Korea, Vietnam, etc. - hands off China, period.
>>913206 I don't know much about the subject but it sounds wrong that China has the most powerful supercomputers. Maybe Wikipedia is wrong, but a quick check shows that Japan and the US have the most powerful computers. But impressively, China has a much larger number-- 226 vs 114. What are they using for right now? Quantum simulation? CFD? Protein folding?
>>911565 Lenin is overrated as a theorist and underrated a polemicist, his argument in this case is clearly a motte-and-bailey
(148.25 KB 410x598 basedDpmt.jpg)
>>915349 the most based takes are always spoilered
>>914017 >someone actually archived the /prc/ thread on 8chan multiple times a day for several months
(310.21 KB 1085x619 XiJinping.png)
Reminder "Dengism" solved the central contradiction of capitalism, that of class struggle, and imported it onto socialism to represent the billion and a half Chinese people who now have their material conditions fulfilled. Deng's theory is just like...fuck! I can't describe how good it is in words. It's like reading Schopenhauer, really enlightening. The man was such a fucking genius.
>>915668 I wish bait posts could be bumplocked like your shitty thread was.
Environmentalism is for commies; we got profits to make! Biodiversity crisis: US, China, Australia and Brazil refuse to sign pledge to reverse damage to natural world https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/biodiversity-summit-un-30x30-us-china-australia-brazil-scott-morrison-jair-bolsonaro-b693593.html
(67.57 KB 600x450 british colonial flags.jpg)
>>914186 No! Chinese nationalism? It's reactionary, they need a more revolutionary stance such as revolutionary British colonialism, Hong Kongers are leading the way!
(105.85 KB 869x287 FALUN GONG VN.png)
Has /prc/ read the Falun Gong visual novel?
>>917235 I had almost blissfully forgotten of what a farce Hong Kong was.
(7.60 KB 277x182 download.jpg)
"Muh Uyhurs" Source: Adrian Zenz, Adrian Zenz run NGO #1, Adrian Zenz run NGO #2,Adrian Zenz working at 60 billion dead from cumminism memorial foundation, Adrian Zenz working for think tank run by weapons contractors, Falun Gong
https://youtu.be/2a7dOn9OAMs?t=22 >Live: President Xi Jinping delivers speech at UN Biodiversity Summit just finished streaming
>>920574 >nothing to see here, just a bunch of jails full of uighurs. you think this is real? ADRIAN ZENZ!!11!1!1 JANNY BAN HIM!!1!1!!
>>921308 >What?! America is packing its jails with black people?! So racist! <Haha, all those uighurs deserved it! After all, they are more prone to committing crime! Heh, uighurs? More like 'uiggers!
>>921308 >>921337 >the americans are extremely racist that means the chinese must be too. Yes if you think drone footage of jails is proof of cultural genocide or whatever the fuck you are a very useful idiot. You can always tell the american(s) has logged on when they drag their strawman in here and beat them up furiously.
(213.16 KB 1149x1280 photo_2020-09-30_12-17-30.jpg)
>>921361 China isn't socialist though.
>>921361 mow hongkie protestors over also they arrested those cops >>921362 >Not REAL socialism
>>921378 Well, I do have respect for Xi, and I believe his want to return to genuine socialism is serious, but I don't see it happening under the current conditions of China. It would be like if Putin wanted to return to Marxist Leninism but was stopped by the billionaire oligarchs who effectively control the country.
>>921308 Real ironic that Americans who have like 50% of the world's prison population call it "genocide" when China is deradicalizing some terrorists
(5.83 KB 300x168 xi jinping at a podium.jpg)
>>921395 I think Xi is an incredibly practical person. I think you can see it in his history. It seems as though it would be hard for somebody who went through what he did to come out of it with anything but a very cynical and practical view of things. And it also seems hard to imagine how he could have risen from that point up to where he is without that kind of belief system. Take this old quote from him in 2000: >People who have little experience with power, those who have been far away from it, tend to regard these things as mysterious and novel. But I look past the superficial things: the power and the flowers and the glory and the applause. I see the detention houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level. That isn't to say Xi wants power for its own sake, I think what Xi experienced in his youth would have led him to two kinds of motivating forces. This is another quote from that New Yorker article a couple years ago: >A longtime friend who became a professor later told an American diplomat that he felt “betrayed” by Xi’s ambition to “join the system.” According to a U.S. diplomatic cable recounting his views, many in Xi’s élite cohort were desperate to escape politics; they dated, drank, and read Western literature. They were “trying to catch up for lost years by having fun,” the professor said. I don't think it is hard to imagine this being the case for Xi's milieu. The Cultural Revolution disillusioned a lot of people. But the fact Xi charged back into the machine gets to the first thing it seems like motivates him, which is clearly a level of ambition, but I think the ambition might be rooted in a sense of seeking self-respect and safety. Rather than running away from the thing that condemned him to possible death, condemned his sister to death and disgraced his father, he decided that he knew better than his father and the people who had ended up there and he could prove it by taming the machine. The kind of basic state line on his father was that he was an ideologue, but not very practical. I think Xi accepts that framing, and he must think of himself as much more practical. But the second thing that I think motivates him is the idea that he despised the apparatus that would have put these naive people (especially the grunts like the red guards) in a position to abuse power for nothing he saw as meaningful or productive and sow chaos like they did. Xi is a nationalist in the sense that he identifies with China and values China. He had opportunity to leave China a couple of times and chose not to, including with his first wife to England. He believes that with his ambition and his grounded perspective on things that he can make sure China doesn't fall into the same mistakes that led to his suffering in his youth. He thinks the world is a flawed and dangerous place, and principled ideals don't change that.
>>921308 So give a source and let's examine where its information came from.
>>899417 China's allies: Nepal,Cuba,Venezuela, North Korea, Laos, Pakistan,Iran,Byelorussia,Syria,Russia. China's friendlies: Sri lanka, Kazakhstan, Kyrghzstan, Tajikstan, Armenia, Azerbaijannies,Iraq, Serbia, Argentina, Bolivia (if socialists manage to reverse the coup) plus various african countries including Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. Neutral: Turkmenistan,Myanmar,Switzerland and in the long run i would even say Italy (but that's a struggle to fight there). Every other nation is a potential enemy for them IMHO.
>>911276 Stasi was ungodly based
>>921507 > Laos what happens there?
(548.86 KB 395x280 Shut Up bitch.gif)

Delete
Report

no cookies?