/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
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.

Delete
Report

no cookies?