What's the final Holla Forums verdict on this guy...

What's the final Holla Forums verdict on this guy? I've heard rumors that he's lowkey guiding China into a new era of socialism. Is that true? Is he at least valuable as a counterweight to American and European imperialism? It doesn't seem like China does nearly as much on the world stage as say, Russia. What is his endgame?

Other urls found in this thread:


He's only half way through, how can you come up with a final verdict.

Yet another state capitalist shill, we shall see what happens in the near future though.

State capitalism is when you try (and fail :^)) to heavily regulate a capitalist system to benefit the people. China is a plutocracy, and screws over the people in favour capital. Major difference.


NEP was State Capitalism, and we openly admit it.

Another gerontocrat out to censor everything, detain all the undesirables, and vassalize the neighbors. What else needs to be said? At least the SU used Marxism to justify a welfare state.

Pretty much this. So far China is basically a socdem state at it's very very very best and a hardcore porky kleptocracy at worst. Although, it's obvious that China's experiment with capitalism is ending so Xi still has some space to redeem Beijing. But my hopes are limited, to say the least. Money is attractive and China's new ruling class (born in the 70s and 80s) has come to accept it as a given.

No, the NEP was Capitalism. Stalinism was State Capitalism.

No, the NEP was state capitalism. Stalinism was state capitalism (Sovkhozy) + cooperative worker capitalism (Kolkhozy).

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

He openly displays hammers & sickles in the streets of Beijing, how is that lowkey to you?

I mean I guess we can only hope

He puts on a lovely talking head routine but the rest of his party is still a shitshow. They don't make waves because they're more concerned with making money to piss away in Macau.

From what I've gathered, it's Gucci themselves who did this in Shanghai.


Just another imperialist capitalist. No better then George Clinton.

its still real to me god damn it.jpg


what is he supposed to do? bring full communism with his hands tied behind his back?
what would you be doing differently if you were in his position? (don't answer that. it's a rhetorical because the truth is you'd be doing the SAME DAMN SHIT)

It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.

Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.

In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities. The fact that value is the expression of the social labour contained in the privately produced products itself creates the possibility of a difference arising between this social labour and the private labour contained in these same products. If therefore a private producer continues to produce in the old way, while the social mode of production develops this difference will become palpably evident to him. The same result follows when the aggregate of private producers of a particular class of goods produces a quantity of them which exceeds the requirements of society. The fact that the value of a commodity is expressed only in terms of another commodity, and can only be realised in exchange for it, admits of the possibility that the exchange may never take place altogether, or at least may not realise the correct value. Finally, when the specific commodity labour-power appears on the market, its value is determined, like that of any other commodity, by the labour-time socially necessary for its production. The value form of products therefore already contains in embryo the whole capitalist form of production, the antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers, the industrial reserve army, crises. To seek to abolish the capitalist form of production by establishing "true value" {D. K. G. 78} is therefore tantamount to attempting to abolish Catholicism by establishing the "true" Pope, or to set up a society in which at last the producers control their product, by consistently carrying into life an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of the enslavement of the producers by their own product.

and that's merely taking the full quote and pointing out how he fails even just in the direct context of them.
going further into the matter and actually studying the texts shows how much of a retard that faggot is.

More importantly, he's a counterweight to US and European capitalist forces in denial of climate change.

Gucci are secretly Maoist Gramscians, Holla Forums was right


The second mao died all his successors were killed off too.
Mao knew this would happen. He called people like deng "capitalist roaders"


In Maoist thought, a capitalist roader (simplified Chinese: 走资派; traditional Chinese: 走資派; pinyin: Zǒu zīpài) or (simplified Chinese: 走资本主义道路的当权派; traditional Chinese: 走資本主義道路的當權派; pinyin: Zǒu zīběn zhǔyì dàolù dídàng quánpài) is a person or group who demonstrates a marked tendency to bow to pressure from bourgeois forces and subsequently attempts to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction.

If allowed to do so, these forces would eventually restore the political and economic rule of capitalism; in other words, these forces would lead a society down a "capitalist road". The term first appeared in Communist Party of China literature in 1965, but the idea was initially developed by Mao Zedong in 1956–1957, against what he saw as reactionary tendencies in the party.[1]

Capitalist roaders are described as representatives of the capitalist class within the Communist Party and those who attempt to restore capitalism while pretending to uphold socialism. Mao contended that Deng Xiaoping was a capitalist roader and that the Soviet Union fell to capitalist roaders from within the Communist Party after the death of Joseph Stalin

Didn't read lol



Nothing major but I thought I'd share.

Xi is leftcom gang

Xi reads actual western classics while Trump is illiterate.


I sort of get the feeling that if China were to become hard line Maoists again, the US would probably be even more poised to attack them. They'd probably spin it so that China looks like it'll kill millions of it's people because Maoism. I reckon their current stance is kinda safer for them because they aren't THE world super power yet. I'm giving them a chance, once their on top and they haven't started implementing traditional Communism, then I'll complain. I just think they're trying to keep their heads down by playing along with the west. I could be wrong though, feel free to change my mind.

He's read more than Corbyn too if Corbyn's youtube debate on socialism is anything to go by:


Nah, you're not going to pathologize anyone harder than Mao was pathologized by the US, it just goes into parody/satire territory. No one has the will to start a war with a country that can actually fight back.

I get the feeling that America is trying to stir up a 2nd Korean war so that they have the option of launching an invasion into Manchuria in the future.

Xi Jinping is bringing Chinese vaporwave communism and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

If they're starting a Korean war, they want to keep China out as much as possible, same with the first war. The People's Liberation Army may lack equipment, but they make up for it in numbers and being able to read.

not bad for a Holla Forums infograph, keep it up, I'm proud of you

Yeah, they would try and keep China out of a 2nd Korean war. Although, I didn't mean they'd fight China and NK at the same time. They'd try and annex the DPRK and then use it as a springboard for a later war.

If the Japanese Imperialists couldn't break China under one of her worst leaders, the US isn't going to break Xi's China, especially if they're bogged down in special ops around the world and at home, as the US is going to do and keep going to do because we have to justify that "defense" budget.

True. I do think China would win a theoretical Sino-American war. China was also a fragmented nation in the 30's, nowadays it's a unified country. I'm just worried that America might be stupid enough to try and have a go at them.

I'm not a Leninist, but Americans should absolutely embrace revolutionary defeatism.

A Capitalist
Not even a State-Capitalist
Just a Capitalist

Totally. Thanks btw for alleviating some of my Apocalypse anxiety, you're right about them getting bogged down in all their other wars. Hopefully it just exhausts their bloodlust.

a mobilized, centralized eco-capitalism is what's going to save the world, go back to your armchair.

I'd go further than this. America NEEDS to get a solid military defeat to shake up society, it would have a hell of a lot of positive effects, the aura of American invincibility would be shattered, it would completely demoralize American society, particularly conservatives. So much of reactionism in America is the result of this arrogant exceptionalist attitude.

Even though this is just a shitpost i find it important to point out that as India Africa and other states develop industry whatever Benifit could have been derived from Chinas Eco-Programs will be Cancelled out

The right wing of America is already schizophrenic, imagine if they lost to Iran or something, their brains would physically fracture.

True, but the US doesn't even need to technically be defeated to be demoralized. It's a big deal when a dozen US soldiers die in Afghanistan or Iraq, imagine a full-on (yet non-nuclear) confrontation with China, there would be thousands, it wouldn't take much for the entire country to fracture and go insane. The Iraq War was extremely unpopular but it was only like 4,000 dead over like 8 years. America is waaaay weaker than China or Russia because those countries could absord hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties without cracking.

China has been engaging in their own imperialist agenda since they turned capitalist. The reason they don't "do" as much as the US is because their empire building has yet to significantly conflict with US interests. Aside from East and Southeast Asia, they are pretty much free to do whatever they want. Thus, the empire building in Latin America and Africa is pretty much lowkey and go unnoticed by the bourgeois propaganda apparatus.

As for what I think about Xi Xinping, I don't think he's going to bring socialism back in China.

no they haven't, read Lenin.

Most of what China is doing in the Third-World is actually legitimately good stuff, no-interest loans, building infrastructure, mines etc, most of it is charity done purely to gain political favour with those countries - ie it's diplomacy. It's entirely different than Western companies who do nothing but rape the resources and enslave the countries with debt.

China is state capitalist, it's different from liberal market capitalism but there is barely any trace of socialism left. It still has scientific economic planning so it probably will outpace the USA in a few years, and might even save the planet in terms of ecological disaster.

Xi is a cool guy it seems. He has a PhD in Marxism. Marxists make the best mangers of capitalism, because they understand its underlying rules and contradictions. Is he serious about socialism? He might be, but probably won't take any action in that direction unless China enters a serious crisis.

idk why people are getting so excited over China lately, back in the 80s Gorbachev talked about a return to Leninist principles and look how that ended
China's path for the last 4 decades is hard to defend without doing rhetorical backflips


Or how in Vietnam there's plenty of waving of Ho Chi Minh. These figures are the placards of great moments in history whose very visage is a sense of political legitimacy. So for China to look to "Mao", Russia to "Stalin" and Nicholas II, and wherever to whoever by no means entails a dramatic emancipatory shift in policy. Much to the contrary, the visages of the past are stripped of their historical connotations and become figureheads for the present neoliberal agendas, with a tincture of national historical sentiment to cement them

Well, except for the Chinese itself I guess. The exceptional growth in living standards and economic output is hard to denounce. Communists should never lose the connection with the masses - and while Gorbachev dissolved the USSR undemocratically, with dire consequences, the CPC earned the respect of the population by never really abandoning the mass line and responding to the needs of their citizens. They will without a doubt maintain their state capitalist system for a while, but what if it exhausts itself? I could easily see them switching to socialism, as long as Marxism continues to be the leading principle.

for the Chinese themselves*

What's with the massive purges he did recently? Who did he purge and why?

would Xi be able to get me that qt gf tho?

I don't think China is going full socialist again
anytime soon but i still support china as an anti imperialist thing

China's experiment with capitalism is ending because to nobody's surprise their capitalist markets are collapsing. Normally China needs about 10% yoy growth for it's financial system to function normally, this year they got about 6.3% and it is expected to hit 5% next year (it's actually much lower if you don't use government numbers but calculate economic activity between energy demand and domestic cargo shipments).

So, what's a porky to do? He can't take the blame for this so he blames other capitalists and bureaucrats, puts them up on (perhaps justified) corruption charges and consolidates power. This is triggering the shit out of westerners who see this and freak out because their utopian dream of liberal economic reforms causing liberal political reforms isn't working out, it's doing the opposite as China's central politburo reestablishes it's supreme authority over the nation's affairs.

This might sound leftist but it isn't (at least for now). As things stand currently his purges and "reforms" aren't in the service of breaking down Beijing's capitalist system and redistributing it/devolving it down to workers, it's in the service of the central government to obtain more power and concentrate the wealth within their coffers. It's no different than if a Holla Forumstard assumed power and began gassing jewish bankers for "treason", while taking their money for himself.

China isnt going to go commie again. According to some article i read xi is taking influence from putins style of governance. This is what is scaring the western elite. I think trump winning really cemented the irrelevance of the obama/Clintonian neo liberal third way garbage

So he has the two biggest meme books out for display. This proves nothing.

Good post

What's wrong with Capital? That alone makes Xi better-read than Mao, if Molotov is to be believed.

The point is that it's unlikely he actually reads it. Do you honestly consider the memefesto to be a reference quality work? They're on display because they're the sole two works your average normie would be able to identify as socialist.

I should also add that according to the medium article, his bookshelf literally includes Stages of Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto among other Porky friendly econ books

The guy has a PhD in Marxism. I'm sure he knows more about it than you.

On top of being no indication of him being serious about socialism besides slogans and very future deadlines his PHD was completely plagiarized and merely a formality.

Why would anyone from the top leadership seriously study Marxism if there has been loads and loads of "Thoughts" and "Scientific Outlooks" that supposedly cover the Chinese condition better? And we all know the results from that.

I feel that quote by Lenin is taken extremely out of context. All i've read from him concerning the NEP which was, as he said, state capitalist, was that it was totally a temporary stage between capitalism and socialism and that it was the highest stage of capitalism too.

This is what anti-revisionism looks like