A top economist has joined the growing list of China’s elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.

CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China’s cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a “body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership.”

According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China’s sluggish economy and criticizing Xi’s leadership in a private group on WeChat.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    177
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If you think the Chinese economy is bad now, wait 15 years. No amount of sending economists to the gulag will hide this disaster.

    Edit: tankie downvotes are like nectar of the gods to me. Your precious CCP will wither like a plant in the desert.

    • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’ve already been banned from Hexbear. Bunch of assclowns over there.

      Edit: and now lemmygrad

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s easy mode, since Rule 2 is basically “don’t write a fact about China.”

            • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              They are cosplay commie instances, and they all live in western countries especially the USA.

              I browse by all and don’t usually check what instance I’m commenting in. They will swarm like fire ants if you don’t chirp like them. They also have very thin skin so I don’t think they would make good comrades if they ever reach their Utopia.

              I won’t even get into the Hexbear because that’s too easy, but look at the mods for USA at .ml

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Arbitrary bans from overly sensitive mods? Straight to Jail.

          Made a comment about tankies in lemmy getting mad over some news about China getting hit with influence ops by the US. Believe it or not, ban.

          • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s okay man, it takes me a few seconds to scroll through all my bans. It’s funny because all these pro China dweebs are living in the USA. Can’t even commit to the bit and just sit there all day posting anti USA or western stuff. They are obnoxious.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              They are privileged children sheltered from reality by mommy and daddy’s money.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why do you think Israel needs a fucking iron dome? Bunch of virgin clowns in here.

        This you?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        92 upvotes would suggest a lot of people.

        But everything you could say about China rings just as true in Europe, in Japan and Korea, in India, in Russia…

        Global populations are heading for a heavy sag, but westerners only know how to heckle the Evil Foreigners.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Funny because I’m European, and the GDP per capita levels of most EU countries are at 2008 levels.

          As for a population pyramid, China will face the same problem as other countries as you say, possibly more magnified.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 months ago

            EU countries are filling up with war and climate refugees. And… 2008 is one hell of a year to pick as your benchmark.

            • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, blame the immigrants. Very .world thing to do lol. Taking Germany, for example, according to Wikipedia, 0.17% population growth per year between 2010 and 2020 doesn’t seem too great for me, compared to China’s yearly >4% GDP growth for example they’d reduce per-capita growths by an insignificant amount. I’m European myself, and I can tell you that the lack of GDP per capita growth between 2008 and 2024 isn’t due to population reasons either, and I’m guessing it’s the same for the bigger EU economies like France,Italy and Spain but feel free to correct me otherwise.

              2008 as my benchmark is exactly my point: the European economy has only now economically recovered from the effects of its own self-imposed policy of austerity and deprivation of worker rights and welfare, without having restored said rights or welfare to pre-2008 levels. And we see countries like the UK under “labor” administration falling to the same policy again as soon as they enter the government. In the meanwhile, without falling into such policy (although without many significant victories for welfare and labor AFAIK), China has grown its per-capita GDP threefold since 2008.

              So no, I don’t think “Chinese economy looks bad”, I wish my European country’s economy would mimic a fraction of the Chinese growth actually

      • Arn_Thor@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Lots of people, especially the Chinese. The sentiment about work, investment, economic prospects, consumption are all quite bad. The central bank is cutting rates. Just today the government dipped their toes into the helicopter money game. The only thing keeping the party going is exports

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          59
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even then, it isn’t healthy, just healthier. The USA is still going to going to experience economic issues of a growing elderly population, it just won’t be as bad.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration that they can adjust at will. On the other hand, China’s leadership, being Han supremacist, is not receptive to immigration at all.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Immigration definitely helps, especially compared to China. I’m just noting that there will still be some decrease in the ratio of retired workers to current workers.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration

              glances at US immigration policy

              Does it?

              China’s leadership, being Han supremacist, is not receptive to immigration at all.

              Wit drier than a lint trap.

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Coming from one of the foremost resident tankies here, that’s a glowing compliment. Thank you.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Does it?

                People still pay upwards of $10,000 US to get smuggled into the country that they will only work in for 4 years as basic farm and factory workers in a house of 20 people.

                The world is a mess and America is the gold mines of california with no gold in it. But a lot of people are getting rich selling immigrants the shovels.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  People still pay upwards of $10,000 US to get smuggled into the country that they will only work in for 4 years as basic farm and factory workers in a house of 20 people.

                  You’re just describing human trafficking. This is modern slavery. Might as well brag about all the Africans who moved here in the 18th and 19th centuries.

                  The world is a mess and America is the gold mines of california

                  Who can forget the huge influx of East Asian immigrants flooding into the California gold mines to be worked to death in the mines? Another excellent example of American prosperity.

            • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              3 months ago

              Have you… have you seen how Americans have been talking about the border? Especially this election cycle? I don’t know if would characterize either party’s constituencies as “receptive”.

            • rammer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration

              Except that even in the Americas the population is declining. There is a limit to it. The US can outlast many other countries because of immigration but it too has to face the same problem as everyone else.

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Not really. They are the #1 immigration destination. If the US runs out of potential immigrants that means every other country is far worse off. This game is like the old joke about outrunning a bear: you don’t need to run faster than the bear — you only need to be faster than the guy next to you.

          • Shard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            This is the new normal for highly developed economies. The best they can hope for is a 1 to 1 replacement of their population. We’re not likely to see another baby boom occur.

            We’re not going to see a typical population pyramid any more. Because that means a large infant death rate and either war, disasters or a massive suicide epidemic cutting away the young adult population to get the pyramid shape.

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              Given that the amount of habitable land will decrease causing mass migrations, you don’t need a 1 to 1 ratio to maintain a population size.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            it just won’t be as bad.

            glances at Ferguson

            glances at Columbia

            glances at the NYC subway

            How bad are we talking?

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Basically, yes. The sides are nearly parallel, which is great. Compare with China’s, which forms a steep V. Once GenX hits retirement age they are completely screwed. The CCP’s recent push for “traditional family values” and increased birth rates is no coincidence.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        The birthing rates are only dropping, in 15 years all of those people will be to old to work but there are not nearly enough to replace them.

          • takeda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            996 = working from 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week, work schedule practiced currently in many companies in China

            7-10-7 = I’m guessing 7am to 10pm, 7 days a week because of worker shortage?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              Old enough to remember people talking about a 4 day work week and complaining about how many bullshit jobs our economy is swamped with.

              But I guess we actually do have a sever labor shortage and all that surplus manufacturing jettisoned out into the global market simply isn’t enough.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            996 is a term the Chinese use to describe working 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          What gives workers even less time to be consumers, making China even more dependant on overseas markets.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I had the most hilarious discussion with a Tankie about China a while back. They refused to accept that China is pretty much communist in name only. I pointed out that they had billionaires, privately-owned companies, a stock exchange and private property, meaning you can earn capital in China.

      The Tankie actually said something on the lines of, “If you would JUST READ MARX you would know that earning capital is a fundamental cornerstone of communism!”

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Might be a few left in a small part of India.

            If by definition but not by name, a lot of advocates for direct democracy, public goods and services, and nationalized industry still exist all over the world. They just don’t refer to themselves with the same moniker as Mao “History’s Greatest Killer” Zedong.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Tankie actually said something on the lines of, “If you would JUST READ MARX you would know that earning capital is a fundamental cornerstone of communism!”

        I’m a communist who doesn’t want to call China a communist country, so I don’t really agree with the person that you were talking to, but your second paragraph does show you haven’t researched communism or its history. The debate of whether societies need to undergo capitalist capital accumulation first to enter communism is about as old as communism, and the history of communism is full of examples of this. It’s the ideological reason why the Russian Socialist Democratic Labor Party split into two wings: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the former believing that the Russian Empire had to undergo capitalism first in other to become communist, and the latter wanting to implement socialism to the primitive almost feudalist Russian empire. Some similar split happened more discreetly inside the Communist Party of China, with Mao implementing socialism directly to the extremely underdeveloped Chinese society, and later Deng Xiaoping opting for the more market-socialism (known now to many as "socialism with Chinese characteristics).

        So you may or may not agree whether china is communist, but from your comment it’s clear that you’re very oblivious to the historical and ideological reasons for the argument as to whether china is or isn’t a socialist country and whether they’re on the path to it. It’s good to discuss things and to have opinions, but please get informed before dismissing other people’s opinions on topics they’ve probably dedicated more time than you to studying.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          So you may or may not agree whether china is communist, but from your comment it’s clear that you’re very oblivious to the historical and ideological reasons for the argument as to whether china is or isn’t a socialist country and whether they’re on the path to it.

          Weird how this path went from a communist country under Mao to a capitalist one under Xi. I guess it goes back again?

          How exactly do you achieve communism via billionaires, a stock exchange, private ownership, etc.? That’s ludicrous.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m not myself trying to make the assertion that china is communism or that it will achieve communism, I’m saying that what you consider “ludicrous”, has been a hotly debated topic for the past 100 years with many proponents on both sides, many of them with much more knowledge of socialism and revolutions than you or I possess.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yes. I stand by my statement that it is ludicrous to go from no private property to private property and still call yourself communist.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                And I’m saying that you have clearly not dedicated much time to thinking about or studying the issue. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so I’m not very supportive of Dengism, but if you listen to Dengists and Mensheviks they will tell you that China still has a communist party in power (as does Vietnam and as does Laos) whereas the former USSR has a capitalist proto-fascist in government. Only time will tell who’s really right, and whether china shifts to a less market-socialism society and more towards a democratic centrally planned economy in the hands of the workers and the state.

                • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not saying China isn’t a country, I’m just saying it’s hotly debated whether or not it should be called west Taiwan. Only time will tell whether the CCP admits defeat and hands over control in line with their one China policy.

                  Man, making shit up is fun.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do show me where Marx said that the path to communism is eliminating private property and the ability to accrue capital and then bringing it back again.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                No, no, you see, people who Read Theory™ have taken a side, therefore, the position is valid. Like how the value of the holsum Khmer Rouge is debatable instead of gruesomely apparent!

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the Bolsheviks didn’t believe that Russia had to undergo capitalism then why did they implement, and I quote Lenin, state capitalism.

          Also there’s already a term for socialists who tolerate capitalism, it’s social democrats. Maybe the “democrat” thing is the issue MLMs have with the whole concept, not the tolerating capitalism part.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            there’s already a term for socialists who tolerate capitalism, it’s social democrats

            Social Democrats don’t want a transition to communism, not even ideologically. Dengists and Mensheviks do, at least ideologically. Whether you believe that or not is a different debate, but equating socialdemocrats with mensheviks is dumb, not a dunk.

            why did they implement, and I quote Lenin, state capitalism

            Look, I’m not here to argue for Marxism-Leninism against you because you’re obviously trying to be smug, not trying to have a civilized discussion. If you actually want some good (in my opinion) analysis of actually-existing socialism, there are plenty of Michael Parenti videos online, or you can pick up his book “Blackshirts and Reds”. But I suspect you’re just here to punch to those communists that are further left than you are. If you do want to have this discussion let me know.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              Social Democrats don’t want a transition to communism, not even ideologically.

              Last I checked the SPD’s party program still speaks of socialism.

              But I suspect you’re just here to punch to those communists that are further left than you are.

              I’m an Anarchist. Council Communists are generally to the right of me, quite adjacent but not quite there, Tankies somehow managed to seat themselves at the very other side of the plenum.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Last I checked the SPD’s party program still speaks of socialism

                I’m sure the SPD party program talks about the end of capitalism /s

                Again, not here to engage with smug factionalists. Have a good day

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not a factionalist you’re the factionalist. Just agree with me and be done with it!

      • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean you can still have private property under communism, it’s the capital making property that’s more owned by the workers themselves, but you can still own things under communism.

        Similarly, you can earn capital under communism too, it’s just that the tools for earning said capital aren’t owned by corporations under corporations under CEOs under the 1%. It’s not a cornerstone for sure, but it’s not like communism is anti capital and growth and owning things

          • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Read a bit ahead if you may:

            Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Okay? That doesn’t change the summary about private property, which is a thing in China. It wasn’t under Mao, it is now.

            • Fox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              And then the adherents fought over the means and meaning, and everybody else threw their hands up

              • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Tbh Marx is intentionally questioning definitions and such so it makes sense, simplifying it down to terms we use isn’t very productive in that sense, because what he argues for is the abolishing of “private property” as we know it, but without removing the fruits of labour from its people, so if you and your mates worked for your house you can have it, until the moment you start making a business out of it then it’s less ok.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          A bit nitpicky here, but personal property isn’t Private Property. That being said, Marx and Engels maintained constantly that Private Property cannot be abolished in one sweep, that goes fundamentally against Historical Materialism. Socialism emerges from Capitalism, you can’t establish it through fiat, hence why the Cultural Revolution wasn’t a resounding success. Mao tried to establish Communism immediately, misjudged, and then Deng stepped in.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              No problem. Marxism is pretty difficult for most people to understand entirely without reading far more than you would expect, it isn’t simply criticism of Capitalism or advocacy for Socialism and then Communism, but also Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which is where people can easily trip up.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I mean, you definitely should read Marx. China is Socialist, guided by a Communist Party. It hasn’t reached Communism, and when they tried to jump to Communism under Mao and the later Gang of Four, they ran into massive issues because the Means of Production weren’t developed enough.

        Marx maintains that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous, dialectically. That doesn’t mean China needed to let Billionaires run rampant, doing whatever they want, it means that it was the correct gamble to heavily industrialize and interlock itself with the global economy while maintaining State Supremacy over Capital, focusing more than anything on developing the productive forces.

        Like it or not, the USSR largely collapsed due to trying to stay isolated from the West, which legitimately led to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They had strong safety nets and all the necessities they needed, but lacked the fun toys (to simplify a multi-faceted issue, along with increased liberalization and betrayals from Gorbachev). The PRC watched this in real time, and didn’t want to repeat it.

        In that manner, the PRC is Socialist. It maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over Capital, Billionaires fear persecution, state ownership is high and growing, the Proletariat’s real purchasing power is growing. The bourgeoisie exists, but has been kept no larger than can be drowned in a bathtub, in terms of power relation to the CPC, so to speak.

        There is risk of Capitalist roading, and the bourgeoisie wresting control from the CPC. This risk is real, and is dangerous, but it hasn’t happened yet. Wealth disparity is rising, so we must keep a careful eye on it.

        The greatest analytical tool of a Marxist is Dialectical Materialism. When analyzing something, it isn’t sufficient to take a present-day snapshot, you must consider its history, its relations to other entities, its contradictions, and its trajectory. Engels was a Capitalist, was Marx hypocritical for keeping Engels as his closest friend and ally? No. Class reductionism is dogmatic, we must analyze correctly.

        • oyo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The most obvious flaw in your narrative is the assertion that China maintains a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is patently false. China is an autocracy of the party elite, with one man at the top. A dictatorship of a dictator. The fact there may be high level power games and intrigue among the upper echelon doesn’t significantly change this. It doesn’t matter that Xi happens to be the dictator du jour.

          What this means for day-to-day life of the citizenry is something very divorced from socialism or communism. There are some elements of safety net and job placement, but just beneath that is a hyper-capitalist libertarian hellscape punctuated by fearful, feigned, and forced reverence of the party. As long as businesses play along and grease the right wheels the exploitative accumulation of wealth is sanctioned and encouraged.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The most obvious flaw in your narrative is the assertion that China maintains a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is patently false. China is an autocracy of the party elite, with one man at the top. A dictatorship of a dictator. The fact there may be high level power games and intrigue among the upper echelon doesn’t significantly change this. It doesn’t matter that Xi happens to be the dictator du jour.

            Can you explain this? The PRC practices Whole Process People’s Democracy, which certainly isn’t Liberal Democracy, but is democratic. Xi is elected according to this process, and the PRC enjoys 90%+ approval ratings even in peacetime. Does the fact that China has a government at all mean, in your eyes, that it isn’t a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or do you have meaningful suggestions for how they may improve in your eyes?

            What this means for day-to-day life of the citizenry is something very divorced from socialism or communism. There are some elements of safety net and job placement, but just beneath that is a hyper-capitalist libertarian hellscape punctuated by fearful, feigned, and forced reverence of the party. As long as businesses play along and grease the right wheels the exploitative accumulation of wealth is sanctioned and encouraged.

            The near totality of the energy, shipping, railways, mining, banking, and construction sectors are state owned, operated, and planned. 17 of the 20 largest companies are state owned, operated, and planned. 70% of the 200 largest companies are state owned, operated, and planned. The idea that the PRC is a largely state owned and managed “hyper-capitalist libertarian hellscape” with 90%+ approval rates is dizzyingly contradictory. The fact that China has private sectors and heavy international trade with Capitalist countries does not mean it isn’t Socialist. Rather, they learned what happens if you don’t integrate with the global economy by watching the dissolution of the USSR.

            • oyo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              My impression is informed primarily by visiting several small and medium sized businesses across China. What I saw in these industrial regions was an incredibly widespread entrepreneurial spirit. Everyone wanted to get ahead and have their own business. When the money gets really big, I don’t have direct experience, but it stands to reason the autocracy takes control. Greedy pieces of shit who Elon it up like Jack Ma find this out when they get too big for their britches.

              As I’m sure you’re aware, many democracies around the world are largely performative (see e.g. USA) and based on fear, lies, and social engineering. Nothing and nobody in the world could honestly achieve a 90 percent favorability rating, and having observed thousands of workers in China I cannot believe such a number.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                My impression is informed primarily by visiting several small and medium sized businesses across China. What I saw in these industrial regions was an incredibly widespread entrepreneurial spirit. Everyone wanted to get ahead and have their own business. When the money gets really big, I don’t have direct experience, but it stands to reason the autocracy takes control. Greedy pieces of shit who Elon it up like Jack Ma find this out when they get too big for their britches.

                But Jack Ma was punished. Surely you can see the difference, can’t you? It isn’t the bourgoeisie in control, but the CPC. Regardless of individuals with “entrepeneurial spirit,” how does that translate to subversion of the CPC?

                As I’m sure you’re aware, many democracies around the world are largely performative (see e.g. USA) and based on fear, lies, and social engineering. Nothing and nobody in the world could honestly achieve a 90 percent favorability rating, and having observed thousands of workers in China I cannot believe such a number.

                So, because the vibes are off, you call it a “libertarian Capitalist hellscape” where billionaires who "Elon it up’ get punished by the state, and you fully trust your gut instead of diving into hard-evidence? You’ll forgive me for not taking much stock in your analysis.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          when they tried to jump to Communism under Mao and the later Gang of Four, they ran into massive issues because the Means of Production weren’t developed enough.

          That’s legitimate reasoning for a pre industrialized china, much less so when modern China is basically the production capital of the world.

          I don’t think there is a legitimate excuse for the modern wealth disparity, the large transient work force, or the use of forced labor currently happening in China.

          Like it or not, the USSR collapsed due to trying to stay isolated from the West, which legitimately led to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods.

          The USSR didn’t collapse because they were isolated from the West, leading to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They collapsed because they still utilized empirialist tactics to expand their holdings.

          Their failed push into Afghanistan was the final blow, but the Soviet Union had already been spending way too much of their national budget on the military, siphoning away from the robust social safety networks they built in the 60’s.

          Russia didn’t want communism in every country, they wanted every country to be Russia, and thus communist. This of course didn’t track well with the East or the West, leading to the schisms between the USSR and the communist East.

          It maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over Capital,

          But does it? Marx described a dictatorship of the proletariat as workers mandating the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers’ councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.

          Now one would assume that if workers controlled the means of production, then they would have more direct control of their working conditions and pay than somewhere like the United States. We would also hope to see a steady progress towards collective ownership, however in recent history we have seen more and more production being privatized, not nationalized.

          The bourgeoisie exists, but has been kept no larger than can be drowned in a bathtub, in terms of power relation to the CPC, so to speak.

          I’m sorry, but cracking down a few billionaires that step out of the party line is not the same as keeping some small enough to “drown in a bathtub”. 1% of the country owns a third of the wealth of their nation, and as you say the disparity is not shrinking.

          When analyzing something, it isn’t sufficient to take a present-day snapshot, you must consider its history, its relations to other entities, its contradictions, and its trajectory.

          Yes, and now let’s look at modern China under the lens of dialectical materialism. We’ve gone through some of the history already, and can both agree that the transition to collective ownership requires a certain level of productivity to achieve.

          What is that amount of productivity required, and if modern China isn’t productive enough to make that particular leap…who the hell can?

          As far as relationships go, China is one of the most globalized nations in the world. When compared to the USSR, who actually achieved a modest level of collective ownership…modern China is one of the most popular nations in the world.

          Last but not least, contradictions and trajectory. Which I’m grouping together, as their current trajectory seems to contradict the entire purpose of a communist government in the first place. Industrialization has improved the quality of life in the country, but if that isn’t coupled with an increase in a workers control of the means of that production, how is that different than a industrialization in a capitalist nation?

          Engels was a Capitalist, was Marx hypocritical for keeping Engels as his closest friend and ally? No. Class reductionism is dogmatic, we must analyze correctly.

          Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who’s disciples were Jews.

          You can’t be a lone socialist, and people tend to wildly extrapolate on what Marx would have thought of modern economics.

          • Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who’s disciples were Jews.

            Cowbee didn’t do that. Cowbee said that Engles was a Capitalist, i.e. he had Capital, I am reading it as if you are mistaking it for Liberal? Cowbee also didn’t call Marx a socialist.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              My point was that his assertion that Marx didn’t judge Engles for being a capitalist isn’t really meaningful as they didn’t ideologically conflict at the time. There wasn’t an ideological divide between a capitalist and workers, as workers hadn’t developed a stratified class consciousness.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s legitimate reasoning for a pre industrialized china, much less so when modern China is basically the production capital of the world.

            I don’t think there is a legitimate excuse for the modern wealth disparity, the large transient work force, or the use of forced labor currently happening in China.

            The PRC has been increasing state ownership over time and is restructuring the economy. It can’t just push a button and wipe the entire private sector away overnight. I would like to see sources of forced labor though.

            The USSR didn’t collapse because they were isolated from the West, leading to dissatisfaction towards the lack of consumer goods. They collapsed because they still utilized empirialist tactics to expand their holdings.

            Their failed push into Afghanistan was the final blow, but the Soviet Union had already been spending way too much of their national budget on the military, siphoning away from the robust social safety networks they built in the 60’s.

            Russia didn’t want communism in every country, they wanted every country to be Russia, and thus communist. This of course didn’t track well with the East or the West, leading to the schisms between the USSR and the communist East.

            This doesn’t really follow. I’d like clarification on what you mean by Imperialist tactics and wanting every country to be Russia, that stands directly in contrast to the stated ideology of the USSR and appears to be fairly ahistorical. Do you have some numbers we can follow with respect to the claims of Imperialism?

            But does it? Marx described a dictatorship of the proletariat as workers mandating the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers’ councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.

            Now one would assume that if workers controlled the means of production, then they would have more direct control of their working conditions and pay than somewhere like the United States. We would also hope to see a steady progress towards collective ownership, however in recent history we have seen more and more production being privatized, not nationalized.

            This is false, more of production is owned by the state now than it was previously. There is steady progress towards more collective ownership, without disentangling from the global market.

            I’m sorry, but cracking down a few billionaires that step out of the party line is not the same as keeping some small enough to “drown in a bathtub”. 1% of the country owns a third of the wealth of their nation, and as you say the disparity is not shrinking.

            I said disparity is increasing, yes. However, the state has full ownership of 17 of the 20 largest companies, and 70% of the largest 200. Banking, railways, mining, energy, and more are near totally controlled by the CPC. There is a bourgeois class, yes, and this will need to be confronted, but they do not hold more power than the CPC.

            Yes, and now let’s look at modern China under the lens of dialectical materialism. We’ve gone through some of the history already, and can both agree that the transition to collective ownership requires a certain level of productivity to achieve.

            Okay.

            What is that amount of productivity required, and if modern China isn’t productive enough to make that particular leap…who the hell can?

            It can’t be a leap, the next mode of production emerges from the previous. We see this with the CPC gradually increasing ownership of various sectors.

            As far as relationships go, China is one of the most globalized nations in the world. When compared to the USSR, who actually achieved a modest level of collective ownership…modern China is one of the most popular nations in the world.

            Sure, that’s the direct lesson the USSR taught the CPC with its collapse. The world depends on China for production and thus can’t openly attack it.

            Last but not least, contradictions and trajectory. Which I’m grouping together, as their current trajectory seems to contradict the entire purpose of a communist government in the first place. Industrialization has improved the quality of life in the country, but if that isn’t coupled with an increase in a workers control of the means of that production, how is that different than a industrialization in a capitalist nation?

            It has coupled with an increase in worker ownership, like I said the CPC has been steadily increasing state ownership, especially in the last decade or so.

            Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who’s disciples were Jews.

            You can’t be a lone socialist, and people tend to wildly extrapolate on what Marx would have thought of modern economics.

            Engels was a literal Capitalist. Ideologically he was a Communist, yes, but Engels was a literal factory owner and businessman.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              The PRC has been increasing state ownership over time and is restructuring the economy. It can’t just push a button and wipe the entire private sector away overnight. I would like to see sources of forced labor though.

              I would like to see sources claiming state ownership has meaningfully increased over time, as the increased disparity in wealth seems counter intuitive to that claim.

              Source for forced labor in China.

              I’d like clarification on what you mean by Imperialist tactics and wanting every country to be Russia, that stands directly in contrast to the stated ideology of the USSR and appears to be fairly ahistorical.

              Ahh, so examine internal contradictions…but don’t actually call them contradictions.

              It depends on what era and region you are talking about. Stalin was a supporter of communism in one country, as opposed to Mao who urged each country to adopt communism with characteristics unique to each culture.

              A large part of the split between Trotsky and Stalin occured over how to handle the CCP during the Japanese invasion. Stalin wanted to make a deal with the KMT and later turn on them, Trotsky wanted to aid the budding CCP in their fight against imperialism.

              When talking about the spread in eastern Europe, the Soviets implemented programs to replace languages and culture.

              In Korea the Soviets disappeared the socialist leader of Korea who was paramount in fighting off the Japanese, because he wanted control of the country to be transferred back to Koreans and for unification to begin ASAP. He was replaced by the Kim family, who they had trained in Russia.

              Or we could just take a look at how the Soviets treated the non Slavic people withing the USSR. Whom are overwhelmingly more impoverished and have historically had the wealth of their land extracted to support the Slavic population. As well as being drafted for wars at a tremendously higher rate than their Slavic counterparts.

              Do you have some numbers we can follow with respect to the claims of Imperialism?

              What numbers do you speak of that magically determine how imperialist a nation is?

              This is false, more of production is owned by the state now than it was previously. There is steady progress towards more collective ownership, without disentangling from the global market.

              Source?

              said disparity is increasing, yes. However, the state has full ownership of 17 of the 20 largest companies, and 70% of the largest 200. Banking, railways, mining, energy, and more are near totally controlled by the CPC.

              Soo if the state “owns” the majority of the businesses, yet wealth disparity is growing at breakneck speeds, and the workers still don’t have the same protections as some place as dystopic as America… What does that say? Something isn’t adding up here.

              Either the government is purposely creating a bourgeois class on purpose… Or the meaning of ownership is inherently different than what you are implying.

              There is a bourgeois class, yes, and this will need to be confronted, but they do not hold more power than the CPC.

              You could make the same argument about American bourgeois.

              It can’t be a leap, the next mode of production emerges from the previous. We see this with the CPC gradually increasing ownership of various sectors.

              And what has that ownership meant for the people who “own the means of production”? What influence does the average worker in China have that surpasses the level of influence of a worker in Detroit? It seems that ownership just enriches the bourgeois with ties to the government now.

              Sure, that’s the direct lesson the USSR taught the CPC with its collapse. The world depends on China for production and thus can’t openly attack it.

              Which is just another barrier lifted that you say precludes them from actually transitioning to a socialized economy.

              It has coupled with an increase in worker ownership, like I said the CPC has been steadily increasing state ownership, especially in the last decade or so.

              Is that worker really worker ownership…? One would think that you may increase your own working conditions or pay if you collectively owned the factory you worked at.

              How exactly do the workers own the productivity when theres still a management class that capitalizes on the work you produce at the factory you “own”?

              Engels was a literal Capitalist. Ideologically he was a Communist, yes, but Engels was a literal factory owner and businessman.

              Right… But my point was there’s not an ideological difference between Marx and Engles as you implied in your statement.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                I would like to see sources claiming state ownership has meaningfully increased over time, as the increased disparity in wealth seems counter intuitive to that claim.

                Wikipedia has a lot of western-friendly reporting on the increase in SOE’s in quantity and control. Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.

                Source for forced labor in China.

                Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.

                What numbers do you speak of that magically determine how imperialist a nation is?

                I assumed you were familiar with Marxist theory, I was not referencing the idea of Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution or anything. Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.

                Source?

                As above with the SOEs.

                Soo if the state “owns” the majority of the businesses, yet wealth disparity is growing at breakneck speeds, and the workers still don’t have the same protections as some place as dystopic as America… What does that say? Something isn’t adding up here.

                Either the government is purposely creating a bourgeois class on purpose… Or the meaning of ownership is inherently different than what you are implying.

                Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances. The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn’t at “breakneck speeds,” you’re going to have to describe what that entails. Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng’s statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.

                You could make the same argument about American bourgeois.

                No, I could not, because the American Bourgeoisie controls the state entirely.

                And what has that ownership meant for the people who “own the means of production”? What influence does the average worker in China have that surpasses the level of influence of a worker in Detroit? It seems that ownership just enriches the bourgeois with ties to the government now.

                Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there’s even workplace democracy. Simply saying “it seems as though xyz” and gesturing isn’t an argument.

                Which is just another barrier lifted that you say precludes them from actually transitioning to a socialized economy.

                Yes, it’s a contradiction that requires careful planning.

                Is that worker really worker ownership…? One would think that you may increase your own working conditions or pay if you collectively owned the factory you worked at.

                How exactly do the workers own the productivity when theres still a management class that capitalizes on the work you produce at the factory you “own”?

                Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management “class?”

                Right… But my point was there’s not an ideological difference between Marx and Engles as you implied in your statement.

                I did not. My statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.

                  So you’re saying state ownership is a response to increased disparity, yet the increase of state ownership hasn’t been effective at controlling the disparity.

                  Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.

                  An ad hominem? I see this response a lot about anything having to do with the uyghur population. Even if some of the information referenced was gathered by a fascist, that doesn’t mean the information itself is flawed.

                  The haber process was invented by a literal Nazi and we still utilize it to produce nitrogen. Whatever his motivations, the information he gathered has all been verified by reputable journalists to originate from internal part communications or publicly released information.

                  Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.

                  You don’t speak for all Marxist, and Marxist don’t get to redefine terminology to exclude themselves from valid criticism. Even if everyone accepted this definition of imperialism… What do you call it when you violently expand your territorial holdings with ethno national intent?

                  What do we call it when they transfer entire nationalities to places like Kazakhstan to extract the wealth to support the Slavic population? It’s a complete cop out to think that redefining a term to muddy the waters is meaningful despite the end results being tragically similar.

                  Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances.

                  Source?

                  The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn’t at “breakneck speeds,” you’re going to have to describe what that entails.

                  The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France’s 32%.

                  Similarly, the wealth share of the top 10% of the population reached 67%, close to the U.S.’s 72% and higher than France’s 50%.

                  Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng’s statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.

                  Then why is wealth disparity still growing? If SOE have nationalized the majority of production, how is the disparity continue to grow?

                  Well, it’s because SOE are still profit driven… A nationalized business that still has profit motive isnt inherently different from private organization, especially considering that most of these SOE still have a significant amount of shares being publicly traded.

                  How is creating wealth for the state and share holders different from creating wealth for a capitalist and share holders for a workers perspective. There still an inherent motivation to maximize profits at the expense of their own workers.

                  Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there’s even workplace democracy. Simply saying “it seems as though xyz” and gesturing isn’t an argument.

                  Simply stating there are “Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power,” isn’t an argument. Especially considering there’s widely available reports of workplaces ignoring these guilines without retort. On top of that nearly a third of their workforce lacks the protections outlines by the state as they are migrant workers who dont work full time for a single employer.

                  As far as real estate purchasing power… I think we both know the extent of their issues within the real estate market.

                  I don’t really have any criticisms about the majority of their large infrastructure projects, that’s an area I think theyre ahead of the rest of the world, however id hardly say that’s a byproduct of “workers owning the means of production”. I’d say that’s more a byproduct of a more centralized government .

                  Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management “class?”

                  Yes, real wages are rising. But is that a product of industrialization or socialism? Every nation that industrializes sees a rise in wages, that’s not inherent to workers seizing the means of production. What’s strange is that real wages and disparity are rising in eerily similar patterns as western nations.

                  what on Earth is a management “class?”

                  Are you being purposely obtuse, or just can’t make the leap in deduction? What do you call a class of people whos job is to represent capitalist in the actual workplace? People whom don’t participate in ownership, but work on behalf of the owners to maximize their profits at the behest of the capitalist?

                  Just because people don’t utilize the same internalized diction accepted in your particular political ideology, doesn’t mean the information isn’t valid. That’s just asking for discourse based purely on semantic reasoning.

                  statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.

                  Right, but you you said it in reference to class reductionism… Which doesn’t really make sense as there wasn’t an established stratified class consciousness at the time.

                  I honestly don’t have a problem with Communism, I think Marx was brilliant and dialectical materialism is probably one of the most important ideas of the millennium. Im just not as optimistic about the contemporary implementations of it, and I think it’s important to point out the internal contradictions of past and current states for future attempts.

                  I constantly see people talking about the importance of addressing internal contradictions, however when anyone points out something like rising disparity or soe having profit motive, I tend to just get knee jerk reactions that are usually based in logical fallacy.

                  I think you and most Marxist who reflexively defend the contemporary CCP from valid criticism would benefit from a different perspective from someone once very engaged in the party. This isn’t a liberal perspective but someone who is upset at the liberalization of the modern CCP.

                  From Victory To Defeat: China’s Socialist Road and Capitalist Reversal

                  by Pao-yu Ching

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Marx maintains that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous, dialectically.

          Ah, okay. Well, the previous mode of production involved no private property and no accrual of capital. Now there is both. So do please point out where Marx talks about how things go from not earning capital to earning capital to not earning capital again.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I did. Mao tried to jump ahead to Communism, without developing the Means of Production. This was misguided. Deng noted the failures of the Gang of Four:

            During the “cultural revolution” the Gang of Four raised the absurd slogan, “Better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism.” It may sound reasonable to reject the goal of becoming rich under capitalism. But how can we advocate being poor under socialism and communism? It was that kind of thinking that brought China to a standstill. That situation forced us to re-examine the question.

            The PRC had eliminated Private Property, but were poor. The people were struggling. They had not actually developed the Means of Production to the level they needed to be.

            Here’s a Marxist “test,” if you will. If you take expert Marxists and place them in an entirely new Earth-like planet, with no tools, what would their course of history look like? Would they be able to achieve Communism through fiat, or would they have to go through similar stages of production as we did in history?

            The Marxist answer is that, while they may be able to go through the process of development more quickly, with the knowledge of key technologies like agriculture and the steam engine that allowed for major leaps in Mode of Production, they would not be able to achieve Upper-Stage Communism outright, and would have to develop Modes of Production alongside technological development, just like you can’t skip from wooden pickaxes to diamond pickaxes without iron pickaxes in Minecraft, if you’ll forgive the analogy.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No you did not. You did not point to where Marx said it or what he said despite me asking you to multiple times. That is just a lie. You are clearly here in bad faith and this discussion is over. And I better not see this kind of trolling from you to other users.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                In my opinion, I did provide it. I could link The German Ideology and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and if you read them you would perhaps understand Dialectical and Historical Materialism better, but we are having a discussion on Lemmy. The capacity for sharing information and the expecations for a single thread of replies are very low.

                Marx was incredibly intelligent, but he couldn’t predict the future, thus, like I have linked in Critique of the Gotha Programme, the closest we can get is his insistence that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous. Asking for a quote for him saying “communism is when you eliminate private property, struggle a ton, then bring it back in a controlled manner and gradually increase public ownership” won’t happen, because the initial failure isn’t necessary.

                Imagine trying to build a modern cell phone with bronze-age technology. You can’t, just like you can’t materialize Communism through fiat without developing the Means of Production. Marxism isn’t Utopian, ie it isn’t about picking a good society and forcing it into existence, regardless of the level of development of the Means of Production. Marxism is Scientific, ie it focuses on historical developments, the Mode of Production is tied to the technological level of the Means of Production. Feudalism disappeared after the Industrial Revolution, largely, and not earlier. Having achieved a backwards, idealist, impoverished “communism” like under Mao and the Gang of Four goes against Marx’s theory of historical development of class society, and China paid the price for ignoring that.

                Theory must meet practice, and practice must inform theory. The PRC tried to establish Communism without developing the Means of Production adequately, readjusted, and has now rapidly developed. Holding an ultra-Maoist line like the Gang of Four that insisted it is better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism is Revisionism. Maoist Theory regarding Class Struggle did not meet practice, therefore the correct choice was to take a gradualist approach while maintaining CPC control so that when the Means of Production are more developed, they can be more Socialized in turn as Socialism emerges from Capitalism.

                You are clearly here in bad faith and this discussion is over. And I better not see this kind of trolling from you to other users.

                This is insulting, especially considering you haven’t attempted to respond to the rest of my comment, where I try to actually engage with modern analysis of a country Marx never lived to see and actively analyze. If clearly high-effort replies are considered “trolling” and “bad-faith” by your standards, then how can you consider your “gotchas” any better?

                • thoro@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You’re nice for engaging in good faith.

                  It’s a bit funny that people who seem to think they are the politics, Marx, and communism understanders don’t even seem to understand basic Marxism that I picked up in an intro to political philosophy class, which covered Marx for all of about two weeks.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  That’s an extremely long article. Can you point out where he says that communism is developed through eliminating capital, bringing it back again, then eliminating it again?

          • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Bread lines meant they did get the food the needed, which is better than the US solution at the same time, which was travelling bands of kids that found work or starved.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        something on the lines of

        Any time someone describes something that happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they are misrepresenting what happened 100% of the time.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hahaha, are you saying that because it was you on the other end of that discussion? I know you love China so much that you are willing to praise their genocide of Uyghur people.

          Maybe you could distill the theory for us a bit so we can decipher why “socialism” is producing hundreds of billionaires.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Hahaha, are you saying that because it was you on the other end of that discussion?

            Not to my knowledge, but there’s no way for anyone to know what incident it’s referencing so it could be any conversation they had with anyone, or made up whole cloth. I say this exact thing every time I see someone claim something happened on the fediverse without providing a link 1 2 3, and I haven’t been wrong yet. And that’s not really surprising, why wouldn’t someone provide a link to something that made the other side look bad, unless it didn’t actually play out the way they claim?

            For example, when you say that I “praise the genocide of Uyghur people,” that is a lie, and it should be obvious that it’s a lie from the fact that you didn’t provide a link to it.

            I’d be happy to have a good faith discussion regarding China’s economic policies and how they relate to socialism. Just not with someone who I already know is going to lie, misrepresent whatever I say, and act in bad faith, as I know you will.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              From the position of your acceptance of Uyghur genocide and pretending that China is anywhere near the left, it’s astonishing you are comfortable accusing anyone else of bad faith.

              There’s simply no way to have a serious discussion with you regarding anything about China. That’s why you have chosen the lemmy.ml instance, it is a hivemind of like thinkers all sheltered from the truth by fragile admins.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                3 months ago

                Oh, look at that, you can’t provide a link. Because you’re a liar. And once again my rule is proven true.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              For example, when you say that I “praise the genocide of Uyghur people,” that is a lie, and it should be obvious that it’s a lie from the fact that you didn’t provide a link to it.

              That’s right! OBJECTION! is just a genocide denialist, like Holocaust denialists! Much better.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Genocide now has a very specific definition and there’s no need to put “Uyghur genocide” in quotes like you’re trying to deny it’s really a genocide. It absolutely is.

                  Here’s the definition, all it takes is for any ONE of these criteria to be met for it to be considered a genocide:

                  https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2

                  "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

                  (a) Killing members of the group;

                  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

                  © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

                  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

                  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

                  So break this down for China’s treatment of the Uyghur:

                  a) No. Not in, say, the same way Israel is executing Palestinians.

                  b) Absolutely. Forced imprisonment? Slave labor? Unquestionable.

                  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights

                  The Chinese government has imprisoned more than one million people since 2017 and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labor, and forced sterilizations.

                  The United States determined that China’s actions constitute genocide, while a UN report said they could amount to crimes against humanity.

                  c) Yes, see above link.

                  d) Yes, forced sterilizations.

                  https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22311356/china-uyghur-birthrate-sterilization-genocide

                  “In recent months, several Uyghur survivors have testified that the camps themselves have become sites of sterilization by injection, forced IUD implantation, and forced abortion.”

                  e) Also yes.

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48825090

                  “China is deliberately separating Muslim children from their families, faith and language in its far western region of Xinjiang, according to new research.”

                  So when you have 5 criteria for genocide, ANY of which are enough to qualify, and China’s treatment of the Uyghur hits 4/5? Yeah, that’s a genocide.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ll have you know that America did some bad stuff so that justifies literally any amount of authoritarianism from China.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        America doing ‘bad stuff’ is a comical understatement. Sure, the genocide of native Americans and chattel slavery is “bad”, but it is probably worse than general authoritarian actions. You seem to have them the other way around, or at least imply that.

        Both suck. Both have superiority complexes. I have to deal with American superiority complexes, so that paints me as “pro China”.

        I’m simply pro unity.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          You seem to grasp and miss the point at the same time.

          When tankies are faced with terrible shit their government is currently doing, they bring up terrible stuff America did a hundred years ago as if that somehow justifies it. Yes, both things bad, but the second thing has zero bearing in relation to an article about China literally disappearing dissidents.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          They were being sarcastic and facetious. Tankies use a similar argument everytime somebody speaks ill of China.

          Examples:


          “TikTok is a military campaign proven to spy on messages and photos and send massive amounts of data to Chinese headquarters.”

          “OH OKAY but its fine when FaceBook and Google hand over info to the USA, is that it?”


          “Chinese hostile takeovers of Hong Kong, Tibet, and soon potential war with Taiwan and Philippines is worrying. World War 3 could be upon us.”

          “BuT nAtO anD IsrAeL eXiST!”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Reminds me of the Clinton Death List, where anyone tangential to Bill and Hilary who had a bad turn was allegedly victimized to cover up an even more insidious crime.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I already see tankies making up some of the most delusional excuses youve ever heard.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      The most ridiculous I have heard is that when I pointed out that people had to wait for years to get a car, and bread lines were common, I got told that the scarcity in communist states is by design.

      SuRe yOu lIvE iN tHe CoUnTrYsIdE, bUt YoU dOn’T nEeD a CaR. JuSt WaLk oR gEt A bUgGy.

      • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah over production of goods is a problem but the ussr was built different. Hungary(where im from) has the second best land for agriculture in all of europe only after ukraine and somehow we still had food rations. Same in ukraine too. They had it even worse.

          • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah ukraine probably was but i still dont understand what kind of brain rot happened in hungary. The ussr (almost) always went easy on us but they decided that a country with excellent agriculture and absolutely no ores and heavy industry should prioritise the latter.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I think I gave more than enough of the benefit of the doubt in my original comment… I am not an expert or scholar on this, but it would seem as though there is some contention as to whether or not this fits the clarification of “genocide,” but that majority of experts on the subject seem to think it is impossible to deny the intentionality.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

              I know you have some need to defend the USSR at all costs, which means ignoring or attempting to explain away the very real, very awful things that they did in the name of Marxism. And I think that’s a shitty thing to do, and it makes leftists who aren’t accelerationist psychopaths look bad.

              From all of this, it’s impossible to make the claim that there was any genocidal intent against Ukrainians in the USSR, which in fact saved the Slavic peoples from extermination by the Nazis.

              Impossible? Really?

              So is it safe to assume that you are a scholar on the subject? Or just another rando on the internet that creates elaborate rationales to quell the cognitive dissonance that comes with believing that a nation (any nation) can do no wrong?

              Stalin was a shitstain. Again, not an expert, but based on what I’ve read this morning, “impossible” is not the word I would use.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        when I pointed out that people had to wait for years to get a car, and bread lines were common

        Breadlines weren’t common. Breadlines never took place in the USSR between WW2 ending and Perestroika taking place, you’re being ahistorical. Food supply wasn’t secure for all the population in any nation until the green revolution, the USSR being no exception to that.

        Regarding waiting for a car, the soviet economy simply didn’t prioritize car manufacturing. The planning didn’t intend for every citizen to have a car in the 70s or 80s, they didn’t intend to make so many cars, so naturally, the people who had the wealth to buy a car, had to wait in waiting lists to get one, it’s not so hard to understand. There are no waiting lists in capitalism because you can segregate 99% of the population from consuming a particular good simply by making it expensive. In socialism, when you don’t have extreme inequality, most people will have access to purchase power for the vast majority of goods you produce. This in turn means that either you manufacture literally from the start one product for every citizen, or there will be waiting lists, it’s really as simple as that.

        When you can’t afford a house in capitalism until you’re 35 (if you can ever afford it) you aren’t technically in a waiting list, so even if there’s only new housing for 5% of the population every year, there will be no “waiting list” because simply the prices will go up until only 5% can afford it. In socialism, the same 5% of housing can be afforded by 50% of people, so the way to allocate the goods is a waiting list instead of priority through wealth accumulation.

        Do you really fail to understand this?

          • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Transport and a personal vehicle are two different things, go to any country outside the US, car ownership is reserved for the upper classes globally.

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              So I, a resident of Europe, am an upper class for owning a 2004 1.3 litre petrol engine Toyota Yaris.

              We started this comment chain poking fun at the most laughable arguments by tankies… And you guys keep on giving.

              • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yes given you statistically don’t have a reason to own the car as you have well designed cities and functional public transport, the latter almost exclusively due to the socialist movement.

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  functional public transport, the latter almost exclusively due to the socialist movement.

                  Dublin is nowhere near a socialist city, nor having a “functional public transport”. Many people in Ireland still live in hinterlands and rural areas with sparse public transport that comes only an hour or so. Ireland is ranked as having one of the worst public transports along with Poland, the latter being a former communist country!

                  Lol, you give the worst cope I have seen from a tankie. Even tried to gaslight me that I don’t need a car! I wish so I don’t have to spend ludicrous amount of money! I can tell you’re an edgelord Yank who thinks capitalism oppresses you personally, even though you are typing this from a computer or smartphone, developed thanks to capitalism, and while sipping hot cocoa that is not being rationed. And expressing opinions safe and sound protected by the rule of law of wherever you are.

                  Tankies keep on giving the most absurd responses and cracks me up. Thanks for giving me a quick chuckle!

                  If you are so enamoured by communism, go to Cuba, China or North Korea and let’s see if you won’t return begging for your passport back!

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            And access to transport was widely available to the overwhelming majority of the population through trains, trams, buses and trolleybuses. Even if your American mind can’t comprehend this fact, owning a car isn’t the ultimate form of mobility, there are alternatives that are arguably better. City design was centered around walkability, density and public transit; metro systems were luxurious and a predicament all out of themselves, and housing being generally obtained through the worker’s union implied that workers usually lived in relative proximity to their workplaces.

            The soviet economy was a developing, centrally planned economy, not running under the premise of overproduction and surplus but running under the premise of 5-year plans of production. There was full employment, and almost complete usage of the raw materials extracted and industrial goods produced. Making twice as many cars, implied removing all of that labor and those resources from another sector of the economy. When the premise isn’t to “make money selling cars to rich people”, but to “grant adequate material conditions and welfare to every citizen”, you have to make decisions like that. More cars could have implied, for example, fewer hospital beds or fewer trams, but my point is that making more private cars would have NECESSARILY meant making less of something else of which there’s also no surplus (because the premise of the USSR was the non-existence of surplus). It’s very easy to have surpluses in a capitalist economy when you don’t care about 80% of the population not having access to the goods and services available, when you want everyone to have access it’s a different story.

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Tell that to people living in the countryside, lol. Even if your wannabe-communist, Western-born, city dwelling, mindset tell you otherwise, those on the country have limited access to transportation and infrastructures that city folks take for granted.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                Data says otherwise. Since the end of the soviet block, there’s been a massive migration outwards from the countryside in favour of urban life all over the former socialist republics. Maybe the idea of subsidizing the infrastructure of the countryside despite it not making sense within capitalism wasn’t such a bad idea after all… Please, try to respond to that: why are people flocking from the degrading countryside in post soviet countries

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Please, try to respond to that: why are people flocking from the degrading countryside in post soviet countries

                  “I don’t understand why people live in cities.” - Peak Tankie Analysis, apparently

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Since the end of the soviet block, there’s been a massive migration outwards from the countryside in favour of urban life all over the former socialist republics.

                  We’re talking about during communist era, you goal-post moving dong head.

                  You are literally just did what this comment chain is criticising lol.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                It turned a backwater pre-capitalist empire where 80% of the population were poor farmers, into the second world power in unprecedentedly quick industrialization and development, defeated the Nazis and prevented their extermination of the Slavic people including Poles and Ukrainians, it guaranteed rights to women and to national minorities like Kazakh, Uzbeki, Georgians, Armenians, it established for the first time in history concepts like socialized healthcare and pensions for every citizen which western Europe later emulated… After being dismantled, of which it’s been 33 years, Russia still hasn’t recovered the GDP per capita of the USSR, so what does that tell you about how well liberalism is working in Russia?

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Socialised healthcare and pension first came during Bismarck’s time-- long before communism has come to Russia.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  So they’re still around right, because of how well it succeeded? It didn’t completely fail and send the country into famine and despair did it?

                  … oh

      • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Neither of those things are true, unless you’re extremely poor, in which case why are you trying to buy an extreme luxury like a private car?

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Wow, what a useful state-sponsored think tank.

    I’m sure everyone else who works there will make sure to be completely honest with their findings going forward, regardless of how it might make the Party look.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    People complain when Trump and Biden puts tariffs on Chinese products or try to ban Chinese software, or invest hundreds of billions into bringing manufacturing back to the US, but it’s like they just can’t comprehend what a horrific government China has, between an authoritarian police state and leveraging slave labor to take over global industries, they’re a huge threat to freedom everywhere.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d prefer to redirect them to the north. Let them invade the fertile and undeveloped lands russia has neglected, and get back Yongmingcheng. It beats fighting every other country in the pacific - aside from North Korea.

      No one will care if China invades Russia. Do eet!

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Xi is just a walking talking crying infant with an ego that can barely fit in mainland China.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Guess Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey was closer to the real story than the originals by Milne…