President Xi Jinping reasserted the Communist Party's supremacy over his country Tuesday, telling the nation's parliament that "only socialism can save China" as it pursues development.
"History has already proven and will continue to prove that only socialism can save China," Xi said, adding later that the "Communist Party is the supreme political leadership of the country and the fundamental guarantee to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."
Xi also warned against any efforts to split China, days after the United States approved rules that would allow top-level officials to travel to Taiwan.
"All acts and tricks to separate the country are doomed to fail and will be condemned by the people and punished by history," Xi said at the end of the country's annual parliamentary session. He also sought to address concerns about Chinese development projects abroad, saying they "will not pose a threat to any country."
I wish he would just fucking explain what he means by socialism so we can fucking stop these autistic debates. Does he mean actual socialism or just "everything the Chinese government does"?
Adam Turner
chinese characteristics bro
Liam Baker
of course “everything PRC government have done/doing/going to do”. He recently revised the constitution,it is very likely that he do another term:(
Jonathan Kelly
Cool
Nathaniel Rogers
State capitalism… When the party becomes the new ruling class and your whole country is treated like a single company in a capitalist world… And the citizens are merely employees. No strikes allowed though. But if you paint it all red it sure is socialism! An AnCap told me so!
It won’t be socialism until he starts confiscating the property of Chinese porkies and re-implementing a planned economy. Until that starts happening he is a class enemy.
Carter Ward
XI WILL MAKE MAO LOOK LIKE A FUCKING DENGIST NEW ERA GANG
Cameron Cook
He's bullshitting. Just weeks ago his government claimed China was a market [capitalist] economy within US trade related negotiations to avert tariffs which are now being imposed. China is not the savior of socialism, it is no longer socialist. Xi is part of that.
Austin Lewis
He's technically already done that, because China's "porkies" never owned much to begin with as everything in China was always tied into state-owned banks and state-owned conglomerates. As of late he's been purging bankers by using broad definitions of anti-corruption laws. But while that sounds great, one has to remember that he's more or less the CEO of China right now as he operates most of the financial system and has no term limits. Even if he does decide go to full Stalinist ☭TANKIE☭, it's going to be full Stalinist ☭TANKIE☭ with Chinese characteristics, which is to say he's going to be a capitalist ☭TANKIE☭. Or as most people call it, a fascist.
This post is so low on MZT I don't know what to tell you. Even Deng Xiaoping could do better.
This thread is nothing but a big fat mess. Xi is going to make china socialist again!
Blake Walker
He can start by explicitly stating he doesn't want China to be America's dumpster anymore and wall off their economy. He won't though because it'd cause major problems for capitalists within the government.
Landon Bennett
state capitalism was a mistake. you give porky an inch he takes a mile.
Nolan Evans
Definitely ture bro. He is trying so hard to bring back the reactionary “great Chinese tradition”.Pupils even wear ancient times clothing to school and read Confucius “classics”.What’s next? foot binding for full oppression of women? His government even ban Maoist talking points on social media these days. The worst part is people cannot take the first step-speak out against the neo-liberal bullshit they are suffering:( Zizek is right about China. It is becoming a neo-imperialist “with Chinese characteristics” country:(
Jackson Cruz
Sorry I am new but what's so bad about reading Confucius? Wasn't he just some Chinese philosopher people like to quote?
Josiah Allen
Worker movements have been booming in China lately, strikes are frequent and bear results. How the fuck do you think real wages were rising so steadily?
Samuel Campbell
China rn is basically what would have happened in Russia if Stalin didn't stop the kulaks at time; porkies get too powerful and it's almost impossible to stop them
You mean if the kulaks became the communist party and asserted the unity of their class interest with """communism"""
Jason Richardson
I hope Xi kills every faggot like Mao killed every sparrow.
Nathan Wright
Samo socijalizam srbina* spasava *-kineskog porijekla u ovom slucaju
Grayson Lee
So if every uni student has to study Marxism why does the Chinese left appear so weak? I mean assuming they aren’t studying some revised, abridged, butchered version of it, shouldn’t they see all the massive porkyism of the CPC for what it is?
John Wood
the CCP is better at being the Kuomintang than the actual Kuomintang. Sun Yat Sen is the happiest man dead right now.
David Walker
Students good in marxism are co-opted in the government
Easton Nguyen
imo Chinese porkies study Marx in the same way that the Western establishment studies Keynes. They are less interested in his theories from the perspective of the laborer then they are in analyzing it from the perspective of capital.
It's interesting to read radical Keynesians, they always claim that governments and capitalists fail to understand the true meaning of Keynes work. These petit-bourgeois idealists see things from the perspective of the alleged benefits that Keynes theories have to offer the worker and "society" rather then its actual function as a mode of capitalist governance/regulation. In this way, I'm not claiming that Keynesianism is a proletarian ideology, it never was and was never intended to be but laying down an explanation for why there seems to be "two Keynesianisms" if you will.
Before there was Keynesianism there was revisionist Marxism which claimed that to have found a peaceful way to socialism or a utopian capitalism. It turns out that China has shown that revisionist Marxists is much better at managing capitalism then Keynesians–the irony of that being that Keynesianism was created exactly for such a purpose.
This is actually quite true. In some respects, Mao always remained a KMT left-winger imo even if he was forced to change parties.
?Mao always remained a KMT left-winger imo even if he was forced to change parties. This makes the Shanghai Commune a much more depressing tragedy.
Parker Bailey
So, does anybody have any actual insight as Chinese students and CPC members actually study Marx or is this just speculation? I've only talked to one Chinese exchange student and he told me he was required to read the Communist Manifesto and Value, Price and Profit.
Until we have some first-hand information about how they read Marx we can speculate all we want. I feel there is a lot of ignorance about modern Chinese theory.
Dylan Moore
Nah, State capitalism was when the State heavily regulates the capitalist process to protect the people from capitalism. China is a straight plutocracy, and is doing the opposite. A dab of nationalism and militarism, and imperial ambitions on the whole thing, and they are pretty much fascists wearing red. Red fashists, if you will. Dengists are the real red fashists is what I am saying.
Henry Martinez
It'll be fun to see what alternative they provide in place of America in the future
I'm personally curious if they will hit the communism button decades from now, when their productive forces are the best and most diverse in the world, will they do it?
While america has some pretty shitty institutions they are by no means the worst. Distrust is exacerbated by a longstanding culture of wariness of government that is still going strong from colonial times.
Adrian Harris
I think it's reaching game ending levels of distrust imho, the days of compromise and talk may be coming to an end, what with groups like atomwaffen slowly forming
Additionally further distrust international with america will only exacerbate the fruition of the petrodollar yuan.
Jack Cooper
This is the single dumbest I've read today, not only is it economically illiterate, it's blatantly dishonest about the state of workers' rights in China.
Jason Cook
It's abit ironic, people can't decide if China puts down strikes or let's them happen
Petrol-anything a shit, especially in regards to China. Saudi Arabia is only doing some petrol-yuan exchanges precisely because China's state oil company recently went bankrupt, it's bankruptcy was the largest in world history in terms of the volume of cash involved.
Saudi Arabia's oil companies themselves have the upper hand in regards to China, a situation they are only even considering because their attempt to destroy America's domestic oil market failed and has caused America's oil barons to turn against them. Hence why Trump isn't commenting on the increased amount of ethanol blended into gasoline and why Trump isn't reversing the fuel efficiency laws passed under Bush.
The oil industry has everyone backstabbing each other as protectionism grows, and this leaves both Saudi Arabia and China in odd positions. Not necessarily a powerful position, but one where Saudi Arabia's plan B is to milk China who proved unable to fend off their underhanded market manipualtion.
John Reed
...
William Morales
I'm more worried if they can implement their petrol yuan plan without going into war with the US
No one here denies mao's achievements, but until Deng and post Deng China did not have the world changing power, or rather, could not regain this power without developing themselves with the help of foreign technology
What, you think all those stolen iphones or F-35 blueprints went to waste?
It really isn't, with America's THAAD for example that can be negated somewhat.
Without economic power China would continue to be beholden to the USA. Not all simple products are equal, for example having the production to create a Tank is very vague when this could mean a very primitive T-55 or a modern Type 99 main battle tank.
Kevin Jackson
But the issue now is that they are beholden to international capital which is also just kind of shit.
Brandon Hall
There have to be mechanisms in place to allow the CPC to activate full communism (with chinese characteristics) in a way that isn't easily dismantled by the bourgeoisie, both domestic and global.
It can't happen by the simple whims of our dear comrade Xi (pbuh)
Ehh, their goal is (well, at least on paper) to ensure a strong hold on global capital, and when they are the primary decider of it use it to spread socialism
"Globalization, as with the market economy, therefore does not have one specific class character (either socialist or capitalist) according to the party.[58] The instance that globalization is not fixed in nature, comes from Deng's insistence that China can pursue socialist modernization by incorporating elements of capitalism.[58] Because of this there is considerable optimism within the CPC that despite the current capitalist dominance of globalization, globalization can be turned into a vehicle supporting socialism."
Josiah Sanders
The thing is america still as of now leads the world in capitalism, when China replaces it, the decision will fall on them to implement globalisation globally
Levi Barnes
So basically, they want to crash capitalism with no survivors?
I wouldn't be surprised if they're secretly plotting some illuminati tier shit right under our noses, it's happened before.
Brody Butler
The CPC is literally pretending to be building an hyper-capitalist hellscape only so they can suddenly grab the world by the balls and install chinese communism globally.
I mean, the ccp doesn't have much of a choice, it knows there will be an inevitable shitstorm if it can't deliver on its promise to improve the lives of its citizens, this includes everyone down to the most insignificant worker
Cameron Campbell
Are we talking communism or "communism".
So it's a holding pattern to help set things up, and when the time is right, pull the rug out from under us.
Juan Martin
Tbqh probably "communism", even if China were to be top dog it would be a slow and glacial process of fixing the world.
It ought to be a pull out under the rug scenario, at least according to official status, and since I'm an optimist, I'd rather hope they follow through
Kevin Carter
The way I see it, if they go for a "pull the rug" scenario and gain hegemony via economic means it will be a process of fixing the many ills of the world before liquidation of government happens.
But I want to believe they'll follow through on it. The capitalism they show now is just a stage of a greater plan.
Dylan Jones
Same tbqh
Evan Flores
Sun Tzu was the true father of socialism.
Levi Sanders
all this Xi talk is really spooky. let me make it clear for you. HE WONT MAKE CHINA SOCIALIST.
Everyone in China wants to believe it.But with that level of corruption and neoliberalism,smh:(
Elijah Ramirez
Isn't the point of a doomsday weapon that people know about it? If you don't tell anyone about your secret plan eventually people are going to forget about it.
Connor Anderson
I think you've seen too many Saturday morning cartoons. The doomsday weapon is still under construction, no point in advertising its existence when it isn't ready yet.
Parker Gonzalez
yeah i'm going to take xi's actual word for it, not the word of some other guy who happens to be living in china
Jace Collins
Current day China is so awful that even hardline Maoism seems a good thing in comparison.
Leo Phillips
protip that "greater plan" has a 99% chance of being a godawful fascist state and not communism, otherwise there'd be no need for the 'net censorship China is famous for (and a thing American porkies are incredibly asshurt about, since they have always wanted that shit here)
Asher Parker
Not "some dude", China's official representatives to the US government:
China's government has literally admitted to "improving the socialist market economy" by "building a market economy". Or in other words, building capitalism not socialism.
Landon Wilson
One can't "subvert" capitalism without being a capitalist. The process itself is still largely inadvertent, capitalists create new technologies that render their enterprises irrelevant and in the process destroy their ability to own capital, causing it to naturally become owned by workers or regional authorities in one way or another.
In China's case, this is an extreme problem because everything is centralized into Beijing. Decisions go one way: down from the central government. And such is why they will never be a communist state until they engage in some sort of bureaucratic liberalization or reform, because workers have no ability to own the means of their production if they are all taking marching orders from a central authority.
The criticisms western liberals have of China (the few remaining who do criticize it, these days they worship China like Holla Forums worships Russia) are fully salient here, in that China's regime is too dependent upon a central CPC bureau to function. This dependency also precludes socialism, because it's the central bureau who owns everything, not the workers. It's why China has to spend so much money on a domestically-focused Army (see Tibet), whereas Americans dump that cost off onto individual cities and counties (whom are subject to local control through elected Sheriffs). On the topic of Tibet, that conflict alone is proof that China is neither communist nor interested in being communist since they stole the means of production from Tibetans for their own purposes. A classic imperialist move.
Why would the literal porkies in the CCP implement socialism once they've succeeded in becoming the richest, most powerful porkies on the planet? They will never do such a thing because it would be diametrically opposed to their material (class) interests. The CCP won't implement socialism for the exact same reason the Koch family won't implement socialism. This is not rocket science. Don't be so fucking naive.
Nathan Foster
Are you saying the USSR also was headed to facism because of their censorship?
The Chinese had a defensive isolationist strategy nearing the end of the Qing empire, and that essentially caused the hundred years of humiliation, additionally the isolation cause by the cultural revolution along with the intellectual disruption resulted in a great gap in China's productive forces and the world.
It cannot be any clearer to China that a defensive strategy in the modern era would totally fail them. Simply leaving the Tibetian region autonomous for example would result in either a failed state or India taking it over，resulting in the concession of Asia's primary water source for some moral goody points.
China has learnt through blood and war you can't just shut the world out and hope for development outside of the basics mao set up, thus a market-socialist economy is a necessary while China continues to play catch up.
Perhaps not some ideologically pure form of socialism, but the country has a mutual interest in ensure nations it works and trades with remain healthy and stable.
Justin Cook
Or China could have built desalination plants on the coast, which they absolutely have the ability to do through their domestic nuclear program and is demonstrated by their coastal island construction. But this idea doesn't work because their coastal waters are extremely polluted, because China's government didn't care that they were poisoning their own resources as with any other capitalist. As you said here was never any reason to annex Tibet other than to deny it to other countries, because it'd be such a waste of resources. Exactly the capitalist mindset.
China tested their first nuclear weapon in 1964. That's all which is needed to prevent imperialism, China itself exists as it does because in 1953 American President Truman was afraid of instigating a nuclear war with the USSR if he attempted to retake China and North Korea. It is why North Korea, one of the poorest countries on the planet and the least capable of fending off an American attack, is able to get America's undivided attention and force America to be extremely cautious.
Xavier Carter
Nanjie is doing fine though
Nathan Phillips
As a Chinese myself,I'm so freaked out to be on/leftypol/ now. Jesus how do you guys get all these information about China despite the “wall”?! I’m so glad that some of you guys understand that fascism is a global thing and China is no exception. This gave me hope:)
Adrian Hernandez
Someone hasn't read up on Wang Jinwei
Carter Johnson
Most non-cosmopolitans can see China for what they are, and even then large American businesses have been asshurt over Chinese businesses/capitalists outcompeting them (on price) for some time now. The only people left defending China are American retailers whose profits are threatened by Trump cutting China out of North America. On the right Holla Forums does the same with Russia.
Asher Evans
What kind of socialism then? A kind of socialism with billionaires? A kind of socialism with a bourgeois class and a proletariat?
Ethan Parker
Nukes are not really enough, North Korea has nukes and they are still bullied around by the USA through sanctions. The ussr had nukes and they went the way of history.
Additionally China's coastal area is heavily populated, desalination plants would take years to build and China when it took Tibet was far too poor and preoccupied to take that route, however there are ongoing efforts
These things will not disappear overnight unless some form of a brutal executive force were formed to carry it out, but I am sure they do not wish to continue the same system of keeping other developing nations in poverty for mere resource extraction
This is why you have Maoism, not Mao thought. No one wants to make pig iron in their backyards.
Isaiah Walker
"Maoism" was a creation of Sendero Luminoso. Unless every douchebag calling themselves a "Maoist" follows the SL's line, they aren't really Maoists.
Parker Lewis
Alright so once they're the numba one hegemonic capitalist super power they'll implement socialism but it will actually be capitalism but they will be nicer?
Why tho?
Sebastian Fisher
It doesn't make sense, their own technocrats can see the writing on the wall that such a system will lead to enviromental collapse which inadvertently affects the world, and since they have the technology why would they not help?
If more of the world is developed and stable, the less destructive consequences the world will have to go through, if China succeeds in helping Africa and the Middle East out of their economic ruts, will this not stop the rise of reactionary movements in Europe?
I'm not going to lie, some revisionism will probably occur since you can't seriously expect China to globally enforce it without turning that into a global dictatorship, but I think with their rise it will at least provide a model that isn't the current meme of "the freer the markets the better the country"
China is doing a fuckton of investing in Israel. How is that socialist?
Blake Howard
I think there's good news here, the reason fascists have been so ineffective, especially at war, despite their militarism, are unable to objectively assess the enemy. Liberalism since the 70's has now that same issue. The neolibs, once there's a revolutionary takeoff, will be powerless.
Oliver Cook
Xi is labor zionist gang
Colton Walker
It's in order to ensure Israel has an incentive in listening to them, which can help in pulling them away from further fucking up the Middle East.
already off to a bad start, what's needed is a single state with equal rights and a ban on Zionism, it's a hateful chauvinist ideology.
Grayson Morris
I don't know comr8. You know how the Pentagon has extensive plans for a case of war against every damn country on Earth? I'm willing to bet all developed countries have absurdly detailed plans to prevent or crush anything leftist that might threaten to become global again. The first time around, their hands were too busy to properly take care of those weirdos in the ass-end of Europe but it didn't seem to matter anyway because Soviet power didn't look like it would survive WW1, let alone the ensuing civil war, and next thing you know they nearly took over the world. The next time, they'll rather be safe than sorry.
Ayden Scott
You can have extensive plans to invade every country on earth, but when you can't make objective evaluation of the enemy or of the situation, which their ideology actively prohibits them from doing, that's when life spits in the face of your plans. They've already been humiliated in Syria and their navy can't stop crashing into other ships and getting lost.
Gavin Jones
That's never going to happen. At this point, the only option for the Palestinians is to join with the general Israeli working class and fight both Israeli AND Palestinian elites together. "Banning Zionism" sounds silly - how do you ban an ideology? There's also no way that, even if a one-state of Palestine happens, the Palestinians will be able to have enough social capital to maintain their hegemony in the society given that they're 1. only going to be roughly 50% of the population (not 85% like South African blacks) and 2. not going to be advanced enough to develop right away in order to be on-par with their Jewish overlords.
The correct answer for this conflict is total democratization of Israeli institutions. Keep the settlements and their infrastructure but integrate them so the apartheid system goes away. And do it slowly, because any drastic change will create an entirely violent environment.
Sebastian Brown
Well my point is that they have had literally a century to make an objective evaluation. They're bound to have a lot of tricks up their sleeves.
Cameron Myers
Plus a one state solution either comes about through a slow and steady process of reconciliation between the two sides to put aside Zionism or a brutal war to exterminate Israel, which is something not even the USSR did.
And in order for a peaceful resolution to occur, both sides will need an incentive to first at least work together, that is where I hope China can come in.
Noah Cooper
America's military-industrial complex might as well be it's own thing, especially given the amount of public/collective organization there.
Easton Allen
Only socialism can save China. Prove me wrong. (tip: you can't)
Mason Morales
Only socialism can save humanity. Liberalism is going to get us all fucking killed.
Grayson Gomez
Honestly I doubt it. It seems that Xi is a genuine socialist, and China has always had a plan to turn the west on its head without a drop of blood being spilled.
If this were the 80s, sure. But with someone new in charge there is hope for actual Chinese socialism.
For them to ignore the inevitable need for socialism is rather unlike them, or at least to throw a spanner in the unsustainable march of neo-liberalism.
He is somewhat responsible for the corruption inside the CCP though.
It's kinda overblown too, Xi's goals are pretty technocratic and objective, their hissyfit is really unwarranted
Nathaniel Morgan
I don't understand how you can believe a bourgeois state would just peacefully dismantle itself and make a transition to socialism and be an anarchist at the same time.
What do you guys think about the state of totalitarianism in China? Shit like having a citizen rating system and facial identification on every street corner is pretty Orwellian tbh. If China goes commie then that’s good, but if the future of global communism also includes a totalitarian state then I don’t think it will be worth it.
The off hand approach would most likely result in revisionism, which is likely since I don't see China even as a global power invading countries for not being communist enough
Isaac Williams
What does that have to do with the extent of the surveillance state and lack of personal/political freedoms in China?
Pssst, but maybe you just want to follow the belive that China is capitalist and not on the way to socialism, but that they're studying Communist theory is contradictionary to your believes on China, so you make up some kind of conspiracy theory.
China is on a good way to socialism, get over it
Jacob Cook
China is capitalist. Everything about China is capitalist. There's not a single thing about China that is in any way socialist. Read Marx anytime.
It's amazing to me how you people will say shit like "the bourgeoise won't let us vote their power away" or "we won't get to socialism by asking the capitalists nicely" but at the same time you literally believe that the porkies of the biggest capitalist economy on earth (Xi is one of them) will implement socialism because they're nice and claim to follow the same ideology as you. Complete idealism.
There are some bored foreigners, with full stomachs, who have nothing better to do than point fingers at us. First, China doesn't export revolution; second, China doesn't export hunger and poverty; third, China doesn't come and cause you headaches. What more is there to be said?
For the third world, now the first world on the other hand…
Angel Moore
He probably means revolutions as in US-backed """revolutions"""
David Brown
I think Mao is a fucking idiot, yet he was 100% right about the cultural revolution. You're on a fucking speck of space dust like the rest of us; your middle kingdom is the delusion of tyrants, and Confucianism binds you to your shackles.
As a side note, everyone pls staup using the word technocrat. "Technocrats" aren't technocrats, they are bureaucratic capitalists.
which is why the cultural revolution hampered the work of intellectuals/experts supposedly treasured in Technocracy? which is why after the gang of four were remove and deng's reforms China changed from a isolated backwater to a global economic and upcoming military superpower?
Technocracy values technical expertise to direct society in a productive and healthy manner, rather than merely jerry rigging it like a bunch of Mandarins. The intellectuals of China at the time weren't rationalists or empiricists (despite Mao's concerns with both). The were Confucians, and the technical experts were trained to operate in a Mandarin fashion of rigorous repetition without questioning the purpose of their work. They were also a bunch of class cucks. The real problem I have with Mao is that he believed practice is what made perfection, rather than thorough observation and cautious planning: see my previous post's meme for how that turned out.
I thought you ☭TANKIE☭s were in fucking favor of the 'capital is needed create capital' bullshit, which made up the entirety of the first few decades of the revolution.
Thanks for admitting China is state cap you fucking washed up porkie.
well if you want to isolate yourself you'll go the way of the USSR eventually, and this is taking into account how much china had to catch up with the USSR, additionally isn't observation and cautious planning part of practice? when you do something again you take note of what you did wrong and other factors, are you telling me their intellectuals did'nt take this into account when they started their own nuclear programs or armaments designs? And you can't "creative" or "innovate" your way into making a modern, up to date item, many aspects that the Chinese productive forces at the time lacked were things that were built up over decades of experience, for example the factors in making High Quality steel used to build tanks isn't something a "change of perspective" would give them, it's something only experience and many failures would. Furthermore you have'nt answered how you justify the cultural revolution in it's aspects of letting mob rule denigrate the intellectual and expert fields of China, so much so that it's effects are still felt today.
Ok, China is capitalist. But is it a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Is political power held by the capitalist class or by the party?
Dylan Baker
Fuck off, OP.
Adam Hernandez
Seems like the CCP holds at least the majority of the political power in China.
However, there doesn't seem to be mechanisms in place to prevent bourgeois subversion of the party itself.
William Adams
Markets/SEZs and State owned enterprises or services, which allowed China to modernise its productive forces so it would be less hapless at internal issues (natural disasters) and external threats (American military superiority, etc)*
Wyatt Robinson
Were markets/SEZs the only way to go about doing this? Couldn't they have done it the old-fashioned way? Stalin was able to massively industrialize the USSR without any capitalist methods.
Jose Collins
I was referring to open collaboration with a global free market, though that wasn't really clear in my post either. You are, of course, going to trade for minerals/resources you can't gain through your own country.
Except everything you described about the proceeds of making "high quality steel" is creativity and innovation for fuck's sake. No one said you didn't need time and experimentation to improve. The problem is that Mao didn't experiment with regional trials of his economic reforms. He just slipped them into the country's ass without lube.
Except I did. The intellectuals were Mandarin trained reactionaries, and thus would have lead to China falling back into Asiatic method of production if they ever came to power. Besides, I've read records of people who were forcefully sent to the countryside, and all I see is "I was made to do peasant labor!". with no class critique and no demands to improve peasant education and living conditions.
I have to agree for once. I don't really have a problem with how Stalin handled the proletariat economy at first. It's just that he made absolutely no effort to switch over to consumer production, though in part that can be blamed on the krauts.
Elijah Lewis
I will say it again, every left wing state that has attempted a defensive/isolationist/unorganized stance has been or will be crushed or contained & starved under the weight of organised and advanced offensive forces led by the USA.This goes from the USSR to over a dozen US military bases in Syria.
Lenin-Stalin had a technological gap that was much more mendable than Mao-Deng.
In the days of Lenin-Stalin technological advancement of productive forces could be as simple as organization and importation of foreign equipment as a base, a T-34 for example is a product of well placed production lines and some technological development in the steel, gun design, suspension (which was also borrowed from america) etc.
But in the Mao-Deng era, this was the age where PCs were coming into stage, where computational power was being put into weaponry in order to advance them, for example in missiles. The technological gap was vast.
Creativity and Innovation isn't fucking magic, and just because you have it that does'nt mean the time of development isn't glacial. When you experiment with the factors of what makes good steel it still takes a vast amount of time to get it right.
There's additionally a big difference between telling someone of the issues of peasantry as opposed to dragging them to unironically spend time outside of their important research, hampering the amount time they have to catch up with the every advancing forces of the USA.
If China did not engage the world, they would have never achieved today's results:
Additionally the USSR post WW2 had the luxury of German experts and their satellite or member states to help them with their development of productive forces.
Andrew Young
The USSR definitely proved that rapid development is possible without markets, but it, unlike China, was smaller and had great chunks of the former Russian Empire to trade with. China's introduction of markets was a way to develop the material base to meet the needs of the people. The USSR had more than twice as much land as China (8.65 million sq miles to China's 3.705 million) and only had ~150 million people by the time of its rapid development in the 1920s-1930s as opposed to China's 770+ million in 1978. So China had to adopt a different track to create a material industrial base in order to meet the needs of the people. To put it in simpler terms the USSR had ~18 ppl per sq mile as opposed to China's 259 ppl per sq mile
my biggest worry is their youth and American propaganda, I hope they can stay strong and grow stronger with their nation's rise, America isn't always right and doesn't have the right to dictate the world
what do you suggest, a repitition of the killing fields?
Jackson Gonzalez
Xi could easily kill every single one with a backdoor in their smartphones.
Michael Sanders
This except unironically. It would be easy to track them like this and arrange for "accidents" to happen, to kill them off one by one while the government keeps their PR clean.
He's leaving out the dangers of capitalism that were let in through the banks.
China is not stable at all currently. If US manages to convince the EU to follow a protectionist stance against China they will face hard challenges.
No they're pretty far from fascism. Every nation should have a culture and a nationalistic element otherwise they quickly stop having an identity as a nation (and likely they would federalize with another country). When you have the US against you, you better have a strong military as well.
I'm not too sure about their imperialistic ambitions. They aren't really that prevalent. Other then some Chinese companies going to Africa to get their share of the resource pie.
North Korea is a small country with a lot of their territory being in the mountains. Terrible ground for farming, great ground to defend against a possible invasion.
Yes this is a huge issue. Socialist movements get infiltrated and whenever they win the revolution they're a puppet regime to another country (usually USA). Then the big business can get resources easily from that country and the effort would've been worth it for them.
Have they really been humiliated in Syria? Since USA delivered weapons to rebels, trained them and had deals in the past with ISIS it might be that they want to keep that country in a constant stave of chaos. They don't care about Assad if they did he would've been long dead. But they did care about killing Khadaffi. Sarkozy's arrest probably would point out that the intervention by France in Libya was done for secondary reasons.
The different religions and different cultures prevent those two working classes to ever unite. It just won't happen, they won't put aside differences and they won't cooperate. They rather both stay poor and have their own culture and people than to work together with another.
Colton Morgan
They're already purging Billionaires from the Party and the peoples congress. Xi's anti-corruption capaign really attacks them. Billionaires aren't the Majority in the peoples congress anymore. It's slowly forming into a Dotp
Jaxson Lopez
China has "anti-corruption" campaigns all the time. Purging rivals within the party isn't what DotP looks like.
My main concern with China is their relationship with Israel. China doesn't seem to care at all about the plight of the Palestinians. I do like how they continually frustrate American hegemony though.
Asher Davis
You need to talk to both sides if you want to negotiate a peace, and this isn't the era where wars can be fought on the cheap now
Xi is going to lead this world into full communism, in 20 years capitalism will be seen as a tragedy from a distant past.
Jose Cooper
China is a soulless shithole with billionaires everywhere If that's what socialism looks like then lol
Matthew Howard
Yeah I guess a less than 10% success rate counts as "somewhat"
Mason Smith
nah, fuckoff racist shit
Brayden Baker
It's enough to piss China and Russia off
Levi Morgan
Hahaha ubio si me majke mi. CCCC bato
James Sullivan
They cheat on tests
Christian Phillips
Having a party of hundred millionaires instead of billionaires is not that much of an improvement tbh. The CCP is not a proletarian party. China is and will remain a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie unless there's another revolution (which you would probably oppose).
Xi's successor, or Cyber-Xi himself will then gradually phase the millionaires out like he did with the billionaires.
Ian Young
sure he will
Colton Howard
But why would the CCP invent socialist theory to wrap around their capitalism, call themselves communists, say "only socialism can save China" and swear they'll implement socialism by 2050 if they're just a ruling party filled with porkies serving their own class interests? Why would they do that and not just *be* capitalists like the rest of the world? The CPC have lots of material on why they're "pretending" to be capitalists for the moment but what would they gain from doing the opposite like you claim and that they're only pretending to be socialists?
I'm glad we've come to an agreement. China will be great again.
Leo Roberts
You could argue that they fear a civil war / revolution if they go full, unapologetic and openly turbo porky, therefore the need to mask their rampant capitalism with socialist rhetoric.
I think this line of thinking is bullshit.
Nicholas Harris
Even their rhetoric is turbo porky with the exception of the fact that they use the word "socialism"
Easton Sanders
Why does the US claim to care about democracy and freedom while constantly undermining and overthrowing democratically elected governments, and supporting dictatorships? Why does the swedish government claim to have "feminist foregin policy" while exporting weapons to states like Saudi Arabia? Why do governments lie about having principles, and justify their actions by claiming to adhere to some ideology that serves the greater good, while doing the complete opposite of what they say they believe in?
its not, its barely good enough to lull idiots into the delusion of security and that great murrrica somehow pissed of anybody by swining its THAAD dick on the media
What you believe in is nothing more than overhyped fluff. No different than "new GeForce XYZ DESTROYED AMD ABC card" screaming. THAAD is not a gamechanger. Its primarily a money maker and secondary an asset to tip the weight in favour of the U.S. for a certain amount of time.
Christopher Collins
Wow this dude in power said something about socialism
