Redpill me on china

why does china so much better under capitalism than it did under communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

it liberalised its markets on its own terms instead of being bent over the barrel by the west. dengist-hoxhaist-posadist thought tells us that it had to convert to capitalism to build the infrastructure for communism, namely ICBMs and nuclear shelters

It doesn't. Most of China's rapid growth came under the Mao era; it's just been a slow, steady increase since they introduced marker reforms.

oh boy you haven't seen the contaminated AF areas. Google them.

you're only seein Paris not the rest of France y'know what I mean?

look all of the China up. It's fucked up, looks post apocalyptic.

It was under capitalism the whole time

also this

WEW, spoken like a true pork, economic numerical growth at the expense of everything else.

Also this definately plays a part. The chinese government has strong control over its economy, preventing capital flight or resource extraction at the detriment of the chinese economy.


I'm supposed to believe that a rapidly industrializing country had nearly zero GDP growth over the course of three decades?

Yeah right.

China is only doing so well now because they're rapidly developing their economy by building lots of shit and forcing the rural population into urban areas so they can work in sweatshops. It's the same thing other countries did when they industrialized during the 19th century but at a much faster pace. That kind of development can never last long term.

i've seen it and its bad,but its because of their industry in the cities. afterall thanks to the industrialization the life expectancy have increased, alot.

cthulhu did it lmao

but why did it happen when they "liberalised" the marked


how/what did they liberalised the marked

When exactly was China communist?

deng implemented a ton of reforms to open it up and move away from centralized planning

"China would not have been able to enjoy stretches of double digit GDP growth in recent years if the Party had not turned away from pure socialism under paramount leader Deng Xiaopeng in 1978, when they experimented with economic reform."

because free market economies are really good at growing the economy but terrible at using that growth to actually help people. That's why life expectancy increased the most during the Maoist era but the market reforms are what gets credit for improving the country

never, socialist is arguable but not even a hardcore mautist would claim they achieved full communism.

but isnt socialsim more or less a centralized economy

not really - america had a centralized, collective economy in the 30s and 40s during ww2 but it wasn't socialist - central planning is just a characteristic of some forms of socialism

When exactly was China socialist?

but it was wartime and they had to minimize the damage of the great depression. if centralized economy is more of a socialistic idea could we say china moved more to capitalism?

btw why did china change their economy?

usas real rival instead of getting distracted by rag tag guerilla fighters in the mid east



Think about what happens when a foreign investor invests money into China.

Initially this money ie capital, originates from extraction of surplus value or profits by a Western worker.

It could be argued that this initial theft or wage slavery in the West built the initial infrastructure and productive capacities that then allowed the international conglomerates to continue to extract even more surplus value from their future Chinese proles.

It wasn't that capitalist China rapidly grew because it was more efficient, it grew because it used not only its own manpower but that of the West.

Contrast this to a socialist system that is supposed to be devoid of capital ie surplus extraction, China would be solely reliant on its own labour.

wtf are you talking about. you lived there? thats a fucking postcard what do yo expect

China was fully industrialized by the time of Mao's death. He used the exact same methods of industrialization that Stalin did, which resulted in a quadrupling of Russia's GDP in a five year period.

It is literally economically impossible for those numbers to be accurate. I don't know if they were self-reported (in which case the regime had a vested interest in underestimating their growth in order to use the utterly false excuse that their productive forces hadn't been built yet) or if they were determined by international bodies (in which case the bodies had a vested interest in portraying Chinese planning as a colossal failure). Either way, the numbers aren't accurate.

Because markets are a superior means of distributing resources.

kys ancap

They leave farming to people who can actually farm.

but it thought it wasn't real capitalism when it's cronyist and statist uwu

I don't see why everyone here calls mutualist ancap when they still advocate for a stateless classless society.
the theory itself is flawed, but they still want the same things we want.
ancaps are not like that, they are simply bootlickers larping as egoists.

No replies?

Think about it again, remember how investments are derived from underpaying workers? As workers don't receive the full value of their labour, instead of that worker spending that money on goods for himself, the capitalist used it to pay for the buildings, materials and the training of the new factories in China where they'll go onto extract even more surplus value.

So in a capitalist China, wealth is extracted from foreign workers as well as domestic workers to pay for development.

you should be looking at the value of fixed capital, gdp won't be a valid economic indicator for societies which do not use money for all distribution. China's gdp was deceivingly low under late mao era and it deceivingly low today.

China is under communism since 1949.

They have undertook economic reforms, and they were doing almost just as well (economic growth around 10% yearly with few exceptions) back then too.

What do you mean it did under communism? Unless there were some coup d'etat which i haven't heard of, the party that rules in China since 1949 is the communist party.

because chinks have a huge surplus of labor, thus driving price of labor power to the ground, just fucking look at their unemployment figures, bourgs have ching chong prols by their balls
but this circus is coming to an end with rising labor militancy, shrinking labor supply, lack of world demand etc etc
chinks already struggling with their real estate bubble, and I don't believe they could contain it without severe consequences
they remind me of japs in the 80s, the same fears that they would take the world, the same real estate bubble that jap government didn't allow to burst, and almost three decades of crawling growth as a result

I don't believe in the slightest that chinks can switch to internal demand led growth, no fucking capitalist economy was able to do it, burgers payed their price of becoming a consumer of last resort by deindustrializing and struggling with trade deficit
all of EU market is under Germans now, and they sure don't plan to switch to internal demand led growth in the near foreseeable future

also gdp is a shit indicator
if you look at gdp per capita some shit tax heven that can't produce for shit outperforms pajeets and chinks
Soviets were right all along, don't count service sector as a surplus producing sector, count it as a surplus consuming sector
and look at fucking in kind indicators like energy consumption, gross steel output in tonnes etc etc

The single fact of investment from abroad isn't why China is rich though. Every nation can have investment from abroad, the reason China gets a lot of it is because workers wages are low.

Actually if you are applying that logic, China's savings are going into wall street American bank and the cheap lending is paying for investment in America.

If you want to know who's paying for who look at whose labour gets the least remuneration: Chinese workers.

Off topic but compared to Stalin era USSR, "how socialist" was China in the Mao era? According to the Roo, China (during the GPCR) was the closest thing to communism that has ever existed. And since Maoists where the OG anti-revisionists and complained that the USSR had restored capitalism as early as the late 50's, I always assumed chinese socialism was legit, but lately I've seen ML's and Hoxhaists saying China was never all that socialist.

Mostly wanna hear what ML's, MLM's and Hoxhaists have to say about this. (I already know what leftcoms and anarchists are going to say.)



pick one
maoism is essentially just chinese nationalism with a state planned/state-capitalist economy

Look at this photograph and tell me Russian feudalism was bad.

Do you think every russian had their own salt-shaker palace?

And India has the Taj Mahal amongst countless other monuments, mausoleums, mosques and palaces, are you telling me a few decadent extravagances made at the behest of the rich justify preventable famine, inadequate healthcare, drudgery and the filth that the working class have to put up with?

Those arent completely fake statistics like from the Soviet Union you guys like to flaunt over.




What are you saying? The USSR didn't industrialize fast? Didn't have pretty good economic growth?

Then according to you, every country on the Earth should be at the same level of development everything is already invented, right? You just have to ask for blueprints, and the industry will just build itself up under a few years without any workers by the sheer force of western innovation.
How do you get capital buy anything if you are in a semi-feudal shithole? Not easily for sure. Also you are forgetting that socialist countries have always been embargoed by western powers. How the fuck do you even trade with them?

They got a headstart by using "capitalist" technology.

ok? so what about the fake numbers?

Starting a graph of life expectancy at the end of a civil war. This os a whole new level of cherry picking (not to mention that the distrobution of antibiotics and vaccines is the 1# reason for increased life expectancy for the past 100 years so I have no idea what you are even trying to imply.)


I'm not going to view images on this site. I'm assuming they were produced in the "ante-chamber of socialism"?

you lost me fam

Remember kids. A countrys success and well being can be measured by comparing skylines

It wasnt, average serf had better life then todays russian wage slave

Stop being retarded, get a job and realize how the world even fundamentally works, then do some actual research instead of just alking from your ignorant ass devouring worthless pseudo intellectual crap your guys flaunt as "theory", so you can talk about this stuff like an adult.

Its called CREDITS your dimwit. Ivan lends you enough shekels to buy his cheap ass tractors, designed somewhere decades years ago in Europe, your pay back with higher yield of food thanks to tractor, win win, tractor can also be used to transport crops and other stuff around improving yield of production you can then invest elsewhere like your own automobile industry to build those fancy cars, just have Ivan teach you for a buck, oh shit sounds like capitalism is improving out lives but lets just call it communism anyways.
Do you even know what was embargoed by whom? No you dont. You just keep talking from your ignorant ass with some vague idea like "hostile relations" and bend your fictional premises of your argument to whatever suits you and your delusional opinion you have hanged up yourself with like an infant.

Are you operating under the impression that Africa and Latin America didn't have any trade?

Well, I'll ignore for starters that your argument is deeply lacking in the realm of proving correlation = causation.

China's economy as it stands relies almost entirely on an export-driven model. Now, instead of Japan and the asian tigers, China has become the "warehouse of the east" by shoving millions of rural workers into urban apartment blocks near industrial areas and employing them in sweatshops. As said, this is essentially the same practice every western country did during the industrial revolution. Now the surplus extraction, because it can't be done to western workers, is being shifted onto chinese/southeast asian workers. This has created a surge in foreign investment and with it unprecedented amounts of fictitious capital. Such gigantic credit bubbles will burst and backfire eventually.

Thus the "growth" in China is measured by raw GDP growth, or other metrics that demonstrate the large benefit international capitalists have gained from China's focus on production for export. Chinese workers have been afforded a somewhat better lifestyle by the liberalization reforms, but the price at which they come, ie mass alienation, sweatshops, credit bubbles, overcrowded urban metropolises, devastated countrysides, plus all the normal pitfalls of capitalist society, make it an uneven payoff in favor of the bourgeoisie.

Another kinda off-topic thing to note, as Zhang Xudong does in the essay I'll link, is that this accelerated capitalist development has been eased by the importation of a vast western superstructure which manifests itself in China through consumerism and an incredibly imagistic culture (think about the shirts with meaningless english phrases on them, or the ads made by chinese companies featuring white european models). The purpose of this is to distract from the urban apocalypse of coastal China.

It's almost as if showing off impressive architecture is a very poor way of gauging the life of the populace

people on this board are seemingly unironically doing the same thing with cgi renders of nork skyscrapers. as if confirmation bias was a thing or something.

What is clear is that most 'communist' states have been the drivers of marxist historical forces but not how they imagined. the cruel irony of it all is that for capitalism to reach such the pitch it has in both the soviet union and china it was necessary for both to reproduce primitive accumulation ie the centralisation of agriculture, and the creation of an urban proletariat through intensive industrialisation and social disruption. the irony is that this would not have happened without marxist anti-capitalist movements. if the comprador bourgeoisie had remained in power they would have remained mere satellites of the advanced capitalist economies.

The marxist movements literally created the necessary conditions for capitalism. Can we put forward the case that world historical peoples trapped by their own political forms which don't allow them to progress beyond feudalism are forced by capital to break down those political barriers by communist ideology? that the great marxist leaders and theorists were unwittingly agents of capital. that marxism by understanding capitalism so fully unwittingly caused its world domination?

meant russia

The picture of Pyongyang that have been posted here come party from CNN. I don't think they polish the photos to make them look good.

pictures* partly*
Fucking phone posting

Farmers have been completely been fucked over by the neoliberalization

Good post

I think Zizek made a point about this, and I'm inclined to agree with you