Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
businessinsider.com
A top economist has joined the growing list of China's elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.
CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China's cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a "body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership."
According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China's sluggish economy and criticizing Xi's leadership in a private group on WeChat.
You are viewing a single comment
Wait but Hexbear said that China is a democracy? Did they lie?!??
I had the most hilarious discussion with a Tankie about China a while back. They refused to accept that China is pretty much communist in name only. I pointed out that they had billionaires, privately-owned companies, a stock exchange and private property, meaning you can earn capital in China.
The Tankie actually said something on the lines of, "If you would JUST READ MARX you would know that earning capital is a fundamental cornerstone of communism!"
Tankies are just communist cosplayers.
Where are the "real" Communists? What draws the line between a Marxist and a tankie?
Might be a few left in a small part of India.
If by definition but not by name, a lot of advocates for direct democracy, public goods and services, and nationalized industry still exist all over the world. They just don't refer to themselves with the same moniker as Mao "History's Greatest Killer" Zedong.
I'm a communist who doesn't want to call China a communist country, so I don't really agree with the person that you were talking to, but your second paragraph does show you haven't researched communism or its history. The debate of whether societies need to undergo capitalist capital accumulation first to enter communism is about as old as communism, and the history of communism is full of examples of this. It's the ideological reason why the Russian Socialist Democratic Labor Party split into two wings: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the former believing that the Russian Empire had to undergo capitalism first in other to become communist, and the latter wanting to implement socialism to the primitive almost feudalist Russian empire. Some similar split happened more discreetly inside the Communist Party of China, with Mao implementing socialism directly to the extremely underdeveloped Chinese society, and later Deng Xiaoping opting for the more market-socialism (known now to many as "socialism with Chinese characteristics).
So you may or may not agree whether china is communist, but from your comment it's clear that you're very oblivious to the historical and ideological reasons for the argument as to whether china is or isn't a socialist country and whether they're on the path to it. It's good to discuss things and to have opinions, but please get informed before dismissing other people's opinions on topics they've probably dedicated more time than you to studying.
Weird how this path went from a communist country under Mao to a capitalist one under Xi. I guess it goes back again?
How exactly do you achieve communism via billionaires, a stock exchange, private ownership, etc.? That's ludicrous.
I'm not myself trying to make the assertion that china is communism or that it will achieve communism, I'm saying that what you consider "ludicrous", has been a hotly debated topic for the past 100 years with many proponents on both sides, many of them with much more knowledge of socialism and revolutions than you or I possess.
Yes. I stand by my statement that it is ludicrous to go from no private property to private property and still call yourself communist.
And I'm saying that you have clearly not dedicated much time to thinking about or studying the issue. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I'm not very supportive of Dengism, but if you listen to Dengists and Mensheviks they will tell you that China still has a communist party in power (as does Vietnam and as does Laos) whereas the former USSR has a capitalist proto-fascist in government. Only time will tell who's really right, and whether china shifts to a less market-socialism society and more towards a democratic centrally planned economy in the hands of the workers and the state.
I'm not saying China isn't a country, I'm just saying it's hotly debated whether or not it should be called west Taiwan. Only time will tell whether the CCP admits defeat and hands over control in line with their one China policy.
Man, making shit up is fun.
Do show me where Marx said that the path to communism is eliminating private property and the ability to accrue capital and then bringing it back again.
From Wikipedia article on Mensheviks: (you've been talking to someone else in the comments)
So yes, mate, there are literal historical figures of communism debating this exact same issue that you find so laughable, it's literally the raison d'etre of the word Bolshevism. There is no specific "Marx passage" as if it was the bible, where it says "in case some fella called Mao organizes a socialist revolution in a peasant agrarian society, pls pull it back to capitalism first, and then go to socialism once it's capitalist, ok?" If you generally read Marx, you can see how he puts socialism as the necessary and logical end of capitalism, as something inevitable that will happen because capitalism will bring forward the material conditions for the revolution. But despite that, Marx also was a highly politically involved individual, who pushed forward momentously the socialist movement in Europe together with Engels.
Marx isn't a gospel that you're supposed to be able to chant and have undying faith for, it's an analysis of reality that you can agree or disagree with, which explains the existence of different flavours of communism such as menshevism and bolshevism or such as Maoism and Dengism, which can be explained by the material and historical conditions leading up to those moments. Marx himself said that Marxism has to be constantly interpreting the reality of the moment and critically adapting everything. So if you're looking for a direct quote from Marx about Dengism or Menshevism, I'm not here to provide that, I'm here to tell you that the definition you consider stupid has been hotly debated for a hundred fucking years, so maybe it's not so stupid.
And yet they never said you would go from a position of socialism where the earning of capital was eliminated to a pretty much entirely capitalist country and then somehow reach communism.
Because that makes no sense.
And you and everyone else arguing for this are ignoring that.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is just taking cues from the popular sport of ping-pong.
I'm honestly waiting for something like that. It's so fucking weird to think that dawn has to keep getting darker for the sun to rise.
A few more rounds of Great Leaps Forward followed by ultracapitalism will definitely result in our dictatorship of the proletariat almost being ready to dissolve. We just need to run the cycle a few times until our noble and selfless elites decide it's time to surrender power.
My brother in Christ, Mensheviks and Dengists were against the consolidation of centralised socialist economy before the historical consolidation of capital in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the difference being that Menshevism died off and Dengism ended up taking the lead after Maoism. The restoration of capital is simply a consequence of Dengism taking over AFTER Maoism, not because Dengists believed there should be first Maoism and then Dengism.
Cool. How many billionaires does China get to have before they get rid of them and go to communism? Because it currently stands at over 800 according to my searching. When will their billions be distributed to the masses rather than to their children?
For the last time, I'm not the ultimate supporter of themselves Chinese model of Communism, now that I've shown you that your position stems from being uneducated about socialism, its meaning, and its history, you resort to "how many gazillionaires" because you're not trying to have a civilised discussion. You have a preconceived notion that "China isn't communism", which is fine, so do I, but when confronted with the discrepancies within the communist movement and how there are legitimate arguments to call it socialist and on the way to communism, you just spout your initial position again with stronger words. I'll tell you what I said at the beginning: I don't care whether it's communist or not, but you saying "hurr durr no socialism if billionaires" is a shitty argument from ignorance.
In his theory of Historical Materialism. Mao and the later Gang of Four succeeded in broadly eliminating private property, but had done so without developing the Means of Production adequately, resulting in economic stagnation. The people were poor, they had tried to leapfrog development to Communism in an idealist, Utopian manner, which was a rejection of the Historical Materialist idea that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous.
Communism requires a certain level of industrial development that the PRC did not have, and for that reason the Cultural Revolution was in many ways highly damaging.
Would you have had the PRC uphold the Gang of Four's dogmatic, anti-Marxist line simply because China had largely abolished Private Property? Is it better for the proletarist to be poor under Socialism, or rich under Capitalism?
Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don't see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.
Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you're here in bad faith.
Marx hadn't lived in a time where there was a society that tried to jump to Communism immediately without developing the Means of Production first, so the closest we can get is his critique of Anarchism. Critique of the Gotha Programme also provides perspective on the transition to Communism:
However, I encourage you to read Marx for yourself. You shouldn't "trust" my interpretation, you should dive into Marxism if you wish to critique Marxists along Marxist lines. You can critique as a non-Marxist, that's perfectly valid, but trying to critique as a Marxist without a solid understanding of Marxism isn't good-faith in my opinion.
I am not trying to say that you're making a value judgement. My argument is that, as a Marxist-Leninist that has read no fewer than 2 dozen books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Parenti, Politzer, and other Marxist writers, it is evident to me that your understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism is lacking, and that clouds your judgement when you critique using Marxist analysis.
Don't worry, ML theorists like Stalin take precedence over Marx, like how the New Testament takes precedence over the Old. It's basic theology.
Oh believe me, I know. They don't care about what Marx actually said.
Frankly, Marx strikes me more as an anarchist than a communist, at least insofar as those labels are used today. I suspect he'd find tankies repellent.
The end goal of Marxism is Communism, which is anarchist by a strict definition. There are quibbles between traditional Marxists and anarchists on how to get there - with Marxists typically taking a "We need to take over the state first" approach and anarchists going for "Dismantling/bypassing the state is literally step 1" approach. Tankies, of course, mock 'anarkiddies' without the slightest hint of what the end state of Communism is, because they love slobbering on authoritarian boots.
Marx railed against Anarchists for his entire life, what gives you the impression that he would be an Anarchist today?
I won't be able to explain this very well, but I think I'd frame it as an Overton Window thing. Marx railed against anarchists because tankies didn't exist yet. If he were around today (and still held his 19th c. views) I suspect that on the spectrum of leftism, he'd find himself closer to anarchists than to tankies, i.e. his dislike of centralized authoritarianism would far outweigh his comparatively minor beefs with anarchists.
No, no, you see, people who Read Theory(tm) have taken a side, therefore, the position is valid. Like how the value of the holsum Khmer Rouge is debatable instead of gruesomely apparent!
If the Bolsheviks didn't believe that Russia had to undergo capitalism then why did they implement, and I quote Lenin, state capitalism.
Also there's already a term for socialists who tolerate capitalism, it's social democrats. Maybe the "democrat" thing is the issue MLMs have with the whole concept, not the tolerating capitalism part.
Social Democrats don't want a transition to communism, not even ideologically. Dengists and Mensheviks do, at least ideologically. Whether you believe that or not is a different debate, but equating socialdemocrats with mensheviks is dumb, not a dunk.
Look, I'm not here to argue for Marxism-Leninism against you because you're obviously trying to be smug, not trying to have a civilized discussion. If you actually want some good (in my opinion) analysis of actually-existing socialism, there are plenty of Michael Parenti videos online, or you can pick up his book "Blackshirts and Reds". But I suspect you're just here to punch to those communists that are further left than you are. If you do want to have this discussion let me know.
Last I checked the SPD's party program still speaks of socialism.
I'm an Anarchist. Council Communists are generally to the right of me, quite adjacent but not quite there, Tankies somehow managed to seat themselves at the very other side of the plenum.
I'm sure the SPD party program talks about the end of capitalism /s
Again, not here to engage with smug factionalists. Have a good day
I'm not a factionalist you're the factionalist. Just agree with me and be done with it!
I mean you can still have private property under communism, it's the capital making property that's more owned by the workers themselves, but you can still own things under communism.
Similarly, you can earn capital under communism too, it's just that the tools for earning said capital aren't owned by corporations under corporations under CEOs under the 1%. It's not a cornerstone for sure, but it's not like communism is anti capital and growth and owning things
Directly from The Communist Manifesto:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Read a bit ahead if you may:
Okay? That doesn't change the summary about private property, which is a thing in China. It wasn't under Mao, it is now.
And then the adherents fought over the means and meaning, and everybody else threw their hands up
Tbh Marx is intentionally questioning definitions and such so it makes sense, simplifying it down to terms we use isn't very productive in that sense, because what he argues for is the abolishing of "private property" as we know it, but without removing the fruits of labour from its people, so if you and your mates worked for your house you can have it, until the moment you start making a business out of it then it's less ok.
A bit nitpicky here, but personal property isn't Private Property. That being said, Marx and Engels maintained constantly that Private Property cannot be abolished in one sweep, that goes fundamentally against Historical Materialism. Socialism emerges from Capitalism, you can't establish it through fiat, hence why the Cultural Revolution wasn't a resounding success. Mao tried to establish Communism immediately, misjudged, and then Deng stepped in.
Thank you you've put the difference in better terms than I did
No problem. Marxism is pretty difficult for most people to understand entirely without reading far more than you would expect, it isn't simply criticism of Capitalism or advocacy for Socialism and then Communism, but also Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which is where people can easily trip up.
That's probably the smartest tankie in existence
This is actually hilarious
I mean, you definitely should read Marx. China is Socialist, guided by a Communist Party. It hasn't reached Communism, and when they tried to jump to Communism under Mao and the later Gang of Four, they ran into massive issues because the Means of Production weren't developed enough.
Marx maintains that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous, dialectically. That doesn't mean China needed to let Billionaires run rampant, doing whatever they want, it means that it was the correct gamble to heavily industrialize and interlock itself with the global economy while maintaining State Supremacy over Capital, focusing more than anything on developing the productive forces.
Like it or not, the USSR largely collapsed due to trying to stay isolated from the West, which legitimately led to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They had strong safety nets and all the necessities they needed, but lacked the fun toys (to simplify a multi-faceted issue, along with increased liberalization and betrayals from Gorbachev). The PRC watched this in real time, and didn't want to repeat it.
In that manner, the PRC is Socialist. It maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over Capital, Billionaires fear persecution, state ownership is high and growing, the Proletariat's real purchasing power is growing. The bourgeoisie exists, but has been kept no larger than can be drowned in a bathtub, in terms of power relation to the CPC, so to speak.
There is risk of Capitalist roading, and the bourgeoisie wresting control from the CPC. This risk is real, and is dangerous, but it hasn't happened yet. Wealth disparity is rising, so we must keep a careful eye on it.
The greatest analytical tool of a Marxist is Dialectical Materialism. When analyzing something, it isn't sufficient to take a present-day snapshot, you must consider its history, its relations to other entities, its contradictions, and its trajectory. Engels was a Capitalist, was Marx hypocritical for keeping Engels as his closest friend and ally? No. Class reductionism is dogmatic, we must analyze correctly.
The most obvious flaw in your narrative is the assertion that China maintains a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is patently false. China is an autocracy of the party elite, with one man at the top. A dictatorship of a dictator. The fact there may be high level power games and intrigue among the upper echelon doesn't significantly change this. It doesn't matter that Xi happens to be the dictator du jour.
What this means for day-to-day life of the citizenry is something very divorced from socialism or communism. There are some elements of safety net and job placement, but just beneath that is a hyper-capitalist libertarian hellscape punctuated by fearful, feigned, and forced reverence of the party. As long as businesses play along and grease the right wheels the exploitative accumulation of wealth is sanctioned and encouraged.
Can you explain this? The PRC practices Whole Process People's Democracy, which certainly isn't Liberal Democracy, but is democratic. Xi is elected according to this process, and the PRC enjoys 90%+ approval ratings even in peacetime. Does the fact that China has a government at all mean, in your eyes, that it isn't a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or do you have meaningful suggestions for how they may improve in your eyes?
The near totality of the energy, shipping, railways, mining, banking, and construction sectors are state owned, operated, and planned. 17 of the 20 largest companies are state owned, operated, and planned. 70% of the 200 largest companies are state owned, operated, and planned. The idea that the PRC is a largely state owned and managed "hyper-capitalist libertarian hellscape" with 90%+ approval rates is dizzyingly contradictory. The fact that China has private sectors and heavy international trade with Capitalist countries does not mean it isn't Socialist. Rather, they learned what happens if you don't integrate with the global economy by watching the dissolution of the USSR.
My impression is informed primarily by visiting several small and medium sized businesses across China. What I saw in these industrial regions was an incredibly widespread entrepreneurial spirit. Everyone wanted to get ahead and have their own business. When the money gets really big, I don't have direct experience, but it stands to reason the autocracy takes control. Greedy pieces of shit who Elon it up like Jack Ma find this out when they get too big for their britches.
As I'm sure you're aware, many democracies around the world are largely performative (see e.g. USA) and based on fear, lies, and social engineering. Nothing and nobody in the world could honestly achieve a 90 percent favorability rating, and having observed thousands of workers in China I cannot believe such a number.
But Jack Ma was punished. Surely you can see the difference, can't you? It isn't the bourgoeisie in control, but the CPC. Regardless of individuals with "entrepeneurial spirit," how does that translate to subversion of the CPC?
So, because the vibes are off, you call it a "libertarian Capitalist hellscape" where billionaires who "Elon it up' get punished by the state, and you fully trust your gut instead of diving into hard-evidence? You'll forgive me for not taking much stock in your analysis.
That's legitimate reasoning for a pre industrialized china, much less so when modern China is basically the production capital of the world.
I don't think there is a legitimate excuse for the modern wealth disparity, the large transient work force, or the use of forced labor currently happening in China.
The USSR didn't collapse because they were isolated from the West, leading to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They collapsed because they still utilized empirialist tactics to expand their holdings.
Their failed push into Afghanistan was the final blow, but the Soviet Union had already been spending way too much of their national budget on the military, siphoning away from the robust social safety networks they built in the 60's.
Russia didn't want communism in every country, they wanted every country to be Russia, and thus communist. This of course didn't track well with the East or the West, leading to the schisms between the USSR and the communist East.
But does it? Marx described a dictatorship of the proletariat as workers mandating the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.
Now one would assume that if workers controlled the means of production, then they would have more direct control of their working conditions and pay than somewhere like the United States. We would also hope to see a steady progress towards collective ownership, however in recent history we have seen more and more production being privatized, not nationalized.
I'm sorry, but cracking down a few billionaires that step out of the party line is not the same as keeping some small enough to "drown in a bathtub". 1% of the country owns a third of the wealth of their nation, and as you say the disparity is not shrinking.
Yes, and now let's look at modern China under the lens of dialectical materialism. We've gone through some of the history already, and can both agree that the transition to collective ownership requires a certain level of productivity to achieve.
What is that amount of productivity required, and if modern China isn't productive enough to make that particular leap....who the hell can?
As far as relationships go, China is one of the most globalized nations in the world. When compared to the USSR, who actually achieved a modest level of collective ownership....modern China is one of the most popular nations in the world.
Last but not least, contradictions and trajectory. Which I'm grouping together, as their current trajectory seems to contradict the entire purpose of a communist government in the first place. Industrialization has improved the quality of life in the country, but if that isn't coupled with an increase in a workers control of the means of that production, how is that different than a industrialization in a capitalist nation?
Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who's disciples were Jews.
You can't be a lone socialist, and people tend to wildly extrapolate on what Marx would have thought of modern economics.
Cowbee didn't do that. Cowbee said that Engles was a Capitalist, i.e. he had Capital, I am reading it as if you are mistaking it for Liberal? Cowbee also didn't call Marx a socialist.
My point was that his assertion that Marx didn't judge Engles for being a capitalist isn't really meaningful as they didn't ideologically conflict at the time. There wasn't an ideological divide between a capitalist and workers, as workers hadn't developed a stratified class consciousness.
The PRC has been increasing state ownership over time and is restructuring the economy. It can't just push a button and wipe the entire private sector away overnight. I would like to see sources of forced labor though.
This doesn't really follow. I'd like clarification on what you mean by Imperialist tactics and wanting every country to be Russia, that stands directly in contrast to the stated ideology of the USSR and appears to be fairly ahistorical. Do you have some numbers we can follow with respect to the claims of Imperialism?
This is false, more of production is owned by the state now than it was previously. There is steady progress towards more collective ownership, without disentangling from the global market.
I said disparity is increasing, yes. However, the state has full ownership of 17 of the 20 largest companies, and 70% of the largest 200. Banking, railways, mining, energy, and more are near totally controlled by the CPC. There is a bourgeois class, yes, and this will need to be confronted, but they do not hold more power than the CPC.
Okay.
It can't be a leap, the next mode of production emerges from the previous. We see this with the CPC gradually increasing ownership of various sectors.
Sure, that's the direct lesson the USSR taught the CPC with its collapse. The world depends on China for production and thus can't openly attack it.
It has coupled with an increase in worker ownership, like I said the CPC has been steadily increasing state ownership, especially in the last decade or so.
Engels was a literal Capitalist. Ideologically he was a Communist, yes, but Engels was a literal factory owner and businessman.
I would like to see sources claiming state ownership has meaningfully increased over time, as the increased disparity in wealth seems counter intuitive to that claim.
Source for forced labor in China.
Ahh, so examine internal contradictions......but don't actually call them contradictions.
It depends on what era and region you are talking about. Stalin was a supporter of communism in one country, as opposed to Mao who urged each country to adopt communism with characteristics unique to each culture.
A large part of the split between Trotsky and Stalin occured over how to handle the CCP during the Japanese invasion. Stalin wanted to make a deal with the KMT and later turn on them, Trotsky wanted to aid the budding CCP in their fight against imperialism.
When talking about the spread in eastern Europe, the Soviets implemented programs to replace languages and culture.
In Korea the Soviets disappeared the socialist leader of Korea who was paramount in fighting off the Japanese, because he wanted control of the country to be transferred back to Koreans and for unification to begin ASAP. He was replaced by the Kim family, who they had trained in Russia.
Or we could just take a look at how the Soviets treated the non Slavic people withing the USSR. Whom are overwhelmingly more impoverished and have historically had the wealth of their land extracted to support the Slavic population. As well as being drafted for wars at a tremendously higher rate than their Slavic counterparts.
What numbers do you speak of that magically determine how imperialist a nation is?
Source?
Soo if the state "owns" the majority of the businesses, yet wealth disparity is growing at breakneck speeds, and the workers still don't have the same protections as some place as dystopic as America...... What does that say? Something isn't adding up here.
Either the government is purposely creating a bourgeois class on purpose.... Or the meaning of ownership is inherently different than what you are implying.
You could make the same argument about American bourgeois.
And what has that ownership meant for the people who "own the means of production"? What influence does the average worker in China have that surpasses the level of influence of a worker in Detroit? It seems that ownership just enriches the bourgeois with ties to the government now.
Which is just another barrier lifted that you say precludes them from actually transitioning to a socialized economy.
Is that worker really worker ownership....? One would think that you may increase your own working conditions or pay if you collectively owned the factory you worked at.
How exactly do the workers own the productivity when theres still a management class that capitalizes on the work you produce at the factory you "own"?
Right...... But my point was there's not an ideological difference between Marx and Engles as you implied in your statement.
Wikipedia has a lot of western-friendly reporting on the increase in SOE's in quantity and control. Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.
Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.
I assumed you were familiar with Marxist theory, I was not referencing the idea of Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution or anything. Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.
As above with the SOEs.
Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances. The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn't at "breakneck speeds," you're going to have to describe what that entails. Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng's statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.
No, I could not, because the American Bourgeoisie controls the state entirely.
Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there's even workplace democracy. Simply saying "it seems as though xyz" and gesturing isn't an argument.
Yes, it's a contradiction that requires careful planning.
Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management "class?"
I did not. My statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.
So you're saying state ownership is a response to increased disparity, yet the increase of state ownership hasn't been effective at controlling the disparity.
An ad hominem? I see this response a lot about anything having to do with the uyghur population. Even if some of the information referenced was gathered by a fascist, that doesn't mean the information itself is flawed.
The haber process was invented by a literal Nazi and we still utilize it to produce nitrogen. Whatever his motivations, the information he gathered has all been verified by reputable journalists to originate from internal part communications or publicly released information.
You don't speak for all Marxist, and Marxist don't get to redefine terminology to exclude themselves from valid criticism. Even if everyone accepted this definition of imperialism..... What do you call it when you violently expand your territorial holdings with ethno national intent?
What do we call it when they transfer entire nationalities to places like Kazakhstan to extract the wealth to support the Slavic population? It's a complete cop out to think that redefining a term to muddy the waters is meaningful despite the end results being tragically similar.
Source?
The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France's 32%.
Similarly, the wealth share of the top 10% of the population reached 67%, close to the U.S.’s 72% and higher than France’s 50%.
Then why is wealth disparity still growing? If SOE have nationalized the majority of production, how is the disparity continue to grow?
Well, it's because SOE are still profit driven...... A nationalized business that still has profit motive isnt inherently different from private organization, especially considering that most of these SOE still have a significant amount of shares being publicly traded.
How is creating wealth for the state and share holders different from creating wealth for a capitalist and share holders for a workers perspective. There still an inherent motivation to maximize profits at the expense of their own workers.
Simply stating there are "Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power," isn't an argument. Especially considering there's widely available reports of workplaces ignoring these guilines without retort. On top of that nearly a third of their workforce lacks the protections outlines by the state as they are migrant workers who dont work full time for a single employer.
As far as real estate purchasing power...... I think we both know the extent of their issues within the real estate market.
I don't really have any criticisms about the majority of their large infrastructure projects, that's an area I think theyre ahead of the rest of the world, however id hardly say that's a byproduct of "workers owning the means of production". I'd say that's more a byproduct of a more centralized government .
Yes, real wages are rising. But is that a product of industrialization or socialism? Every nation that industrializes sees a rise in wages, that's not inherent to workers seizing the means of production. What's strange is that real wages and disparity are rising in eerily similar patterns as western nations.
Are you being purposely obtuse, or just can't make the leap in deduction? What do you call a class of people whos job is to represent capitalist in the actual workplace? People whom don't participate in ownership, but work on behalf of the owners to maximize their profits at the behest of the capitalist?
Just because people don't utilize the same internalized diction accepted in your particular political ideology, doesn't mean the information isn't valid. That's just asking for discourse based purely on semantic reasoning.
Right, but you you said it in reference to class reductionism.... Which doesn't really make sense as there wasn't an established stratified class consciousness at the time.
I honestly don't have a problem with Communism, I think Marx was brilliant and dialectical materialism is probably one of the most important ideas of the millennium. Im just not as optimistic about the contemporary implementations of it, and I think it's important to point out the internal contradictions of past and current states for future attempts.
I constantly see people talking about the importance of addressing internal contradictions, however when anyone points out something like rising disparity or soe having profit motive, I tend to just get knee jerk reactions that are usually based in logical fallacy.
I think you and most Marxist who reflexively defend the contemporary CCP from valid criticism would benefit from a different perspective from someone once very engaged in the party. This isn't a liberal perspective but someone who is upset at the liberalization of the modern CCP.
From Victory To Defeat: China's Socialist Road and Capitalist Reversal
by Pao-yu Ching
Listen, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but this is an extremely lengthy conversation where each minor paragraph could be the focus of a single conversation, and the information conveyed would be much better. I'm not going to disrespect you and accuse you of gish-galloping. If you want to focus on a particular topic, I am okay to continue, you can pick one strand and develop it into a sizeable argument and we can discuss from there, but as it stands there is no way to do justice to any of these topics in one cohesive lemmy comment thread.
I read your comment, you have points worthy of responding to. I'm not dismissing that, and I don't want this comment to be interpreted as such, I just wanted to give you the respect of explaining why I would rather focus on one topic at a time, or disengage altogether. Lemmy isn't the right format for such a convo.
Have a good day if you decide you don't want to continue, I appreciate your time.
Fair enough, however I would like to point out that my responses have been direct responses prompted by questions and statements originated by you and the person you were originally responding to.
But I agree that we may benefit from narrowing our topic to a more specific field of discussion. I would be interested in knowing how you feel a profit driven SOE is inherently different from a private company.
In my opinion so long as the company's structural hierarchy and it's inherent purpose remains the same or similar, there's not really going to be a meaningful difference in how the workers are treated. For example, don't really see how the workers have seized any more of the means of production than a worker for a company that offers stock options.
There's still just as much opportunity and motivation for exploiting workers. There's still an inherent profit motive that spurs the worst aspects of capitalism. Even if we propose that there could be less destructive competition due to the states monopoly of production, the fact that these SOE are publicly traded still means there's a competition of capital acquisition. These SOE still have to make sure they invest a significant amount of their excess production value back into the organization to ensure their stock increases in value next year.
Thank you for your time, it's pleasant knowing you can still get into the nitty and gritty with someone you don't 100% see eye to eye with, and not have it break down to name calling. Cheers.
First off, thanks for bearing with me. This is a good question!
The framing of this question is important. Are we evaluating effectiveness? Loyalty to Marxism itself? Simply looking for points of divergence? I'll assume you are more interested in the benefits of SOEs, and whether or not they are loyal to the Marxist idea of Socialism, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Since I am assuming we are evaluating from a Marxist perspective, it truly is important to apply Dialectical Materialism. One of the pillars of DiaMat is that any analysis that doesn't see the entirety of the system, and purely compares stationary snapshots of entities, is not Dialectical analysis but mechanical.
Within the context of the PRC, SOEs are guided by the CPC, which practices central planning as can be made to work with the rest of the CPCs planning, while private companies in Capitalist countries are the ones lobbying the State for lucrative projects of their own. The fact that SOEs are profit driven does not mean that they are guided by Bourgeois interests. It's a measure similar to the NEP.
Private companies within the PRC as compared to SOEs obviously see less direct influence and guiding than SOEs do, but similarly exist under the thumb of the PRC, who allows them to act in their own interests as long as they fulfill their role in rapidly building up the productive forces, which we can see is a role that, to this point, has helped dramatically compared to the era of Mao and the Gang of Four, which saw much slower development.
This really depends on outside factors, again analyzing the context within which these entities exist. In SOEs and Private Companies within the PRC there are elements of Workplace Democracy, as I showed prior, but the idea that business entities are perfectly democratic within the PRC is false, which is why I haven't attempted to make such a point. Assuming the CPC is in fact a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (and we must do so for this argument to not spiral into endless discussions again, we can absolutely revisit this as its own argument if you wish), then this is an example of a Proletarian managed market economy, which is different from Social Democracy where the State acts in the interest of the Bourgeoisie. Given that the CPC regularly punishes their domestic bourgeoisie and the CPC itself has a 90%+ approval rate among the people, we can at least see that the CPC appears to be acting and managing for the benefit of society as a whole, and not for their bourgoeis class.
You are correctly identifying that there is a contradiction at play. The benefits of the market economy are in rapidly developing the productive forces and educating the working masses in how to manage and run production. This is where Historical Materialism comes in, the CPC can't beam information into everyone's brains and mind control them. Instead, market forces result in syndicates and monopolization of Capital, which is dominated and manipulated by the CPC. As the markets develop themselves, they increasingly make themselves easier to directly manage and operate from above. Imagine a million competing factories in earlier Capitalism, and compare it to the era of monopoly Capitalism where a dozen companies practice their own planning, then imagine there is an entity pulling the strings, letting them grow, then seizing them in proportion to their growth.
I try to treat those who treat me with respect with respect in kind. Cheers!
I would say it's important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it's supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.
I don't know if it means they're automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it's an SOE it's immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.
Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn't a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.
I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it's still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn't mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.
If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.
I'm not an anarchist or anything and don't agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you're interested Murray Bookchin's analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.
An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.
Sure, sounds reasonable.
Correct, there is a contradiction at play, and a risk. We do not appear to see this playing against the CPC pruning and managing a Socialist Market economy though, at least not yet.
Again, I had to. Analyzing the CPC as a DotP would be a conversation in and of itself. If you disagree, we can discuss that point, but the limitations at play means we must make the assumption for the rest of the analysis. It isn't perfect, but I can't write a book, here.
Hierarchy isn't the problem, class control is. Hierarchy is a tool. Creating Capital is absolutely important for the PRC, the lack of it under the Gang of Four led to struggles. The CPC controls and carefully manages and prunes the economy as it grows, and absorbs more as it socializes more of its economy as it ripens, so to speak.
This is where the Marxist Theory of the State comes in. If the economy is fully socialized, then it isn't competing with itself, and is being planned by the people for the benefit of all. Class antagonisms no longer exist, and the state transitions, as Engels describes, to an administration of things, rather than a policing of people. It won't be Anarchist, but it will be on the way to Communism (the state can't fully wither away until global socialism is achieved).
I'm aware of the Anarchist critique of Hierarchy, I just don't see it as the primary issue. Socialism isn't a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on the status quo, and Communism an improvement on it.
You too!
Ah, okay. Well, the previous mode of production involved no private property and no accrual of capital. Now there is both. So do please point out where Marx talks about how things go from not earning capital to earning capital to not earning capital again.
I did. Mao tried to jump ahead to Communism, without developing the Means of Production. This was misguided. Deng noted the failures of the Gang of Four:
The PRC had eliminated Private Property, but were poor. The people were struggling. They had not actually developed the Means of Production to the level they needed to be.
Here's a Marxist "test," if you will. If you take expert Marxists and place them in an entirely new Earth-like planet, with no tools, what would their course of history look like? Would they be able to achieve Communism through fiat, or would they have to go through similar stages of production as we did in history?
The Marxist answer is that, while they may be able to go through the process of development more quickly, with the knowledge of key technologies like agriculture and the steam engine that allowed for major leaps in Mode of Production, they would not be able to achieve Upper-Stage Communism outright, and would have to develop Modes of Production alongside technological development, just like you can't skip from wooden pickaxes to diamond pickaxes without iron pickaxes in Minecraft, if you'll forgive the analogy.
No you did not. You did not point to where Marx said it or what he said despite me asking you to multiple times. That is just a lie. You are clearly here in bad faith and this discussion is over. And I better not see this kind of trolling from you to other users.
In my opinion, I did provide it. I could link The German Ideology and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and if you read them you would perhaps understand Dialectical and Historical Materialism better, but we are having a discussion on Lemmy. The capacity for sharing information and the expecations for a single thread of replies are very low.
Marx was incredibly intelligent, but he couldn't predict the future, thus, like I have linked in Critique of the Gotha Programme, the closest we can get is his insistence that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous. Asking for a quote for him saying "communism is when you eliminate private property, struggle a ton, then bring it back in a controlled manner and gradually increase public ownership" won't happen, because the initial failure isn't necessary.
Imagine trying to build a modern cell phone with bronze-age technology. You can't, just like you can't materialize Communism through fiat without developing the Means of Production. Marxism isn't Utopian, ie it isn't about picking a good society and forcing it into existence, regardless of the level of development of the Means of Production. Marxism is Scientific, ie it focuses on historical developments, the Mode of Production is tied to the technological level of the Means of Production. Feudalism disappeared after the Industrial Revolution, largely, and not earlier. Having achieved a backwards, idealist, impoverished "communism" like under Mao and the Gang of Four goes against Marx's theory of historical development of class society, and China paid the price for ignoring that.
Theory must meet practice, and practice must inform theory. The PRC tried to establish Communism without developing the Means of Production adequately, readjusted, and has now rapidly developed. Holding an ultra-Maoist line like the Gang of Four that insisted it is better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism is Revisionism. Maoist Theory regarding Class Struggle did not meet practice, therefore the correct choice was to take a gradualist approach while maintaining CPC control so that when the Means of Production are more developed, they can be more Socialized in turn as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.
This is insulting, especially considering you haven't attempted to respond to the rest of my comment, where I try to actually engage with modern analysis of a country Marx never lived to see and actively analyze. If clearly high-effort replies are considered "trolling" and "bad-faith" by your standards, then how can you consider your "gotchas" any better?
You're nice for engaging in good faith.
It's a bit funny that people who seem to think they are the politics, Marx, and communism understanders don't even seem to understand basic Marxism that I picked up in an intro to political philosophy class, which covered Marx for all of about two weeks.
Thanks. In my opinion, people easily fall into idealist critiques of Marxists if they don't read Marx. The Marxist critique of Capitalism is easy enough to grasp the basics of, as well as the Marxist idea of Socialism as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, but concepts like the Marxist theory of the state, historical development, and Dialectical and Historical Materialism are much less intuitive.
You want quotes? Here are quotes
That's an extremely long article. Can you point out where he says that communism is developed through eliminating capital, bringing it back again, then eliminating it again?
You may not have seen it, but I changed it to an image with a bunch of quotes.
All the Marx quotes there are discussing a very classic Marxist view of capitalism leading to socialism, not the ML view of feudalism leading to socialism if you believe really hard, much less the claim that modern China, in going from feudal-to-socialist-to-capitalist is somehow riding the right path.
I see that. I asked for Marx. You said Engels. Then you provided an image with a bunch of stuff that not only is not what I asked for, but also includes quotes from fucking Stalin.
If you want me to take your arguments in any way seriously, maybe don't include the thoughts of someone who committed genocide.
Yeah, those damn people queueing up in bread lines when they had all the air and water they needed!
They got what they needed, yes.
I don't think having lines for food for people who need it is a bad thing if it gets results. The US just lets people starve. Can't have breadlines if you decide not to give out food, after all!
Bread lines meant they did get the food the needed, which is better than the US solution at the same time, which was travelling bands of kids that found work or starved.
Wall of text
Circular logic
Not going to read
Where, exactly, was the circular logic? Choosing not to read is your right, of course, but if you saw an error in my comment I'd like to know what it is.
Not reading that either.
Why make a comment if you aren't going to engage in good faith? What is the point?
Im ArGuInG iN GoOd FaItH!
Peak liberalism, lmao. Even when I ask for a critique, I can't get any.
The first comment is self-contradictory, "not going to read" yet there is "circular logic". If they haven't read it, how can they know that it is there?
I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, and they doubled down. Oh well.
Private property as in land or a house? Because that's not how it works in China. You can only buy it for a specific set of time. Besides that it is indeed just a capitalistic country with an oppressive state.
Any time someone describes something that happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they are misrepresenting what happened 100% of the time.
Hahaha, are you saying that because it was you on the other end of that discussion? I know you love China so much that you are willing to praise their genocide of Uyghur people.
Maybe you could distill the theory for us a bit so we can decipher why "socialism" is producing hundreds of billionaires.
Not to my knowledge, but there's no way for anyone to know what incident it's referencing so it could be any conversation they had with anyone, or made up whole cloth. I say this exact thing every time I see someone claim something happened on the fediverse without providing a link 1 2 3, and I haven't been wrong yet. And that's not really surprising, why wouldn't someone provide a link to something that made the other side look bad, unless it didn't actually play out the way they claim?
For example, when you say that I "praise the genocide of Uyghur people," that is a lie, and it should be obvious that it's a lie from the fact that you didn't provide a link to it.
I'd be happy to have a good faith discussion regarding China's economic policies and how they relate to socialism. Just not with someone who I already know is going to lie, misrepresent whatever I say, and act in bad faith, as I know you will.
From the position of your acceptance of Uyghur genocide and pretending that China is anywhere near the left, it's astonishing you are comfortable accusing anyone else of bad faith.
There's simply no way to have a serious discussion with you regarding anything about China. That's why you have chosen the lemmy.ml instance, it is a hivemind of like thinkers all sheltered from the truth by fragile admins.
Oh, look at that, you can't provide a link. Because you're a liar. And once again my rule is proven true.
Oh, you want links? I can give you links.
Here you are linking to an article saying it isn't genocide: https://lemmy.world/comment/12211000
Here you are refusing to accept the genocide is happening despite a huge number of links: https://lemmy.world/comment/11959309
And as a bonus here's some trollish avoidance of admitting that the Tienanmen Square massacre happened: https://lemmy.world/comment/12256833
You do know there's a search function, right?
None of those links show me "praising" a genocide. That remains a bold faced, blatant lie.
Tbh, I find that this sort of casual lying is so common in spaces like .world that nobody even seems to care. Maybe it's a neurotypical thing, where you're allowed to tell lies so long as you're lying about the out group. Frankly, when people don't even acknowledge such things as lies, I have to wonder if they're even capable of being truthful or acting in good faith.
Those "huge number of sources" I actually went through point by point. Here's a book from the 1930's called 100 Authors Against Einstein which presents "a huge number of sources" claiming that Einstein's findings regarding General Relativity were wrong. Every one of them is wrong.
Also, I'm amazed that you'd link that last one as if it makes me look bad. The person was caught in saying something wrong so they abruptly pivoted to completely unrelated topics in the most textbook example of Whataboutism that I've ever seen in my life, so obviously I refused to indulge them.
Still waiting on a link for your original claim btw.
Also btw I think your first link is to the wrong comment.
Speaking of casual lying, this is what you were accused of:
You were not accused of praising a genocide even if you put that word in quotes.
Neither of these links show OBJECTION accepting a genocide.
Correct. They do not accept that there is a Uyghur genocide.
I don't feel like wandering your comment history looking for what you've had to say about China's treatment of Uyghurs. Unless you're not the same Objection I saw posting anime cartoons?
That's me.
I find it pretty convenient how you can so distinctly remember me praising something, but you can't remember anything else about that conversation that would allow you to find it in the search function. Are you sure we can rely on your memory? Because I don't remember ever saying that and I'm pretty sure I would.
Was this the same conversation where you were praising the Holocaust? I can't provide any evidence that that happened because I don't feel like wandering through your comment history, but I have a vague memory of you saying something like that, so I guess if vague memories are the standard of evidence we're relying on, you're looking pretty bad too.
Oh, we can solve that. I'll state for the record right now that the Holocaust is evil, rather than allow you to continue lying about that.
Will you say the same right now about China's treatment of the Uyghurs?
I will say right now that no genocide is praiseworthy, and that I have never praised any genocide in my life.
Right, you won't. You will prevaricate. You deny the China is doing anything to the Uyghur people, which is your form of supporting it. Thank you for proving me correct.
TIL all this time that I was calling myself an Atheist, I was actually praising God.
That's right! OBJECTION! is just a genocide denialist, like Holocaust denialists! Much better.
I'll have you know that America did some bad stuff so that justifies literally any amount of authoritarianism from China.
America doing ‘bad stuff’ is a comical understatement. Sure, the genocide of native Americans and chattel slavery is “bad”, but it is probably worse than general authoritarian actions. You seem to have them the other way around, or at least imply that.
Both suck. Both have superiority complexes. I have to deal with American superiority complexes, so that paints me as “pro China”.
I’m simply pro unity.
You seem to grasp and miss the point at the same time.
When tankies are faced with terrible shit their government is currently doing, they bring up terrible stuff America did a hundred years ago as if that somehow justifies it. Yes, both things bad, but the second thing has zero bearing in relation to an article about China literally disappearing dissidents.
Do you actually realize how little sense this makes?Just realized that the previous comment was sarcastic, I'm taking everything backThey were being sarcastic and facetious. Tankies use a similar argument everytime somebody speaks ill of China.
Examples:
"TikTok is a military campaign proven to spy on messages and photos and send massive amounts of data to Chinese headquarters."
"OH OKAY but its fine when FaceBook and Google hand over info to the USA, is that it?"
"Chinese hostile takeovers of Hong Kong, Tibet, and soon potential war with Taiwan and Philippines is worrying. World War 3 could be upon us."
"BuT nAtO anD IsrAeL eXiST!"
My favorite is how they claim that PRC doesn't invade anyone, ignorant of their attempts in Korea (Korean War) and Vietnam (after the Americans left).
And their success in Tibet.
Yes.
Sorry, I read it too quickly and didn't notice that it was sarcasm.
Tell it to hexbear and .ml
maybe they’re just trying to avoid dissapearing
Reminds me of the Clinton Death List, where anyone tangential to Bill and Hilary who had a bad turn was allegedly victimized to cover up an even more insidious crime.