/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1809690
This site has some really stupid posts, but this has to be one of the the top ten stupidest things. This is just blatant chauvinism. Its insulting to the Chinese and its insulting to every other people.

>>1809699
>economic infrastructure resembled 70's Japan

You mean top-down direct state ownership was in Japan, too? Did Japan have mandatory trade unions and communist party cells in every company? Were there boards of supervisors which NECESSARILY contained trade union representatives in every company?

It's all in here in the corporate law of China, by the way. It's kind of amazing how communists instead of checking it for themselves just want to believe hearsay and bourgeois authorities

http://mg.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/201910/20191002905610.shtml

>>1809693
In-fucking-deed, no research, no right to speak

>>1809702
China isn’t chauvinist and supporting china isn’t either but what should I expect from an anarchist I bet you think socialist commodity production doesn’t exist

>>1809707
> anti-imperialism similar to the Qing empire and the Ottoman Empire

I don't know much about the history of the Qing empire or the ottoman Empire. I really doubt they were anything but imperialists. Could you please share your history knowledge to us?

>>1809709
>Qing empire got destroyed by the western empires making them martyrs to the anti-imperialist cause
>Ottoman Empire successfully proved to European chauvinists and Christians that a eastern Muslim power could compete with the European empires and strike fear into them

If you need more info than this than I can’t help you

>>1809711
>>Ottoman Empire successfully proved to European chauvinists and Christians that a eastern Muslim power could compete with the European empires and strike fear into them

the ottoman empire predated fucking modernism you clown, next youll be saying the sassanids proved to european colonialists that the east can compete

>>1809649
Of course, all of what I wrote is public knowledge.
None of this is hard to find or understand, it is in the open and the CPC isn't even trying to hide it. The heaviest obfuscation, barring neocon western MSM, comes now primarily from the online revisionist cheerleaders, on Twitter, lemmy, "MAGAcommunists", or on this very site – not from the CPC themselves, who will spew there unprincipled bourgeois-serving nonsense through official channels.

>Bukharin Inspired Deng Xiaoping to Change China
https://www.icsin.org/uploads/2021/02/16/39d8634ba99a5b85596ef64b2302a60c.pdf
>Young Deng Xiaoping, during his student years in Moscow, not only studied Bukharin’s works but also had the chance to listen to Bukharin’s public speeches; he also personally witnessed implementation of the New Economic Policy advocated and pushed by Bukharin and saw for himself the changes the NEP in the social life in the Soviet Union. All these experiences left a deep mark on Deng’s thinking.
>Bukharin expounded on the concept of “primary stage of socialism.” This was the first time a communist thinker had proposed such a theoretical concept. Deng Xiaoping introduced the concept at the CPC thirteenth party congress in 1987, during the early phase of the implementation of reform and opening up policy
>Bukharin stresses on the need for nurturing market mechanism and market in the early stages of socialism, something he had elaborated in a report in 1925: “All farmers must be told, all farming classes must be told – make money, accumulate, develop own economy!” Deng Xiaoping advocated “let afew people become rich first” in the earlystages of promoting reform and open doorpolicy, is it not Bukharin’s influence?
>In the late 1970s, Deng began to promote China’s reform and openingup policy which eventually turned into themain resource in his thinking.
>From theory into practice, Deng’s reform policies exceeded Bukharin’s NEP. This was inevitable. For after all Bukharin’s theory was conceived at the beginning of the last century, China’s reform led by Deng happened in the 1980s and in 1990s.
>During his famous Southern Tour 南巡 in 1992, he had said: “The Communist Manifesto and the ABC of Communism are my guides

>Xi stresses decisive role of market in resource allocation [2020, Xinhua News Agency]
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-05/23/c_139082022.htm
>"The practices in reform have made us realize that we must under no circumstances turn our back on addressing blindness of the market, and we must not return to the old path of a planned economy."

Xi Jinping openly rejects Mao Zedong Thought / Marxism on Class Struggle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ5B2xoQQsk

>The Latest Achievements of Chinese “Socialism”
https://us.politsturm.com/the-latest-achievements-of-chinese-socialism
>Some people continue to consider China a communist country, with the Communist Party of China at the helm, which therefore leads to a bright future. From the recent achievements of the builders of communism, we unexpectedly see a record drop in the birth rate in China and an increase in youth unemployment. Is this the future we want to build?
>Let's consider the specifics of Chinese socialism in more detail.
>Problems with finding a job are already experienced by 21.3% of young Chinese citizens between the ages of 16 and 24, as of July 2023. Earlier, in May, this indicator was 20.4%. [1]
>The problem of employment among young Chinese citizens has been observed since the beginning of 2023 and naturally leads to an increase in discontent. At the same time, the overall unemployment rate in China is 5.3% (about 80 million people), and the country's GDP continues to grow gradually after the abolition of coronavirus restrictions. This allows the authorities to declare that the economy is steadily recovering, which is an outright manipulation, because since 2019 the pace of industrial production has been slowing down and growth is due to the so-called low base.
>If young people cannot find a job, then the Chinese economy does not need them now to build communism.

>What was the situation with unemployment in another country building communism - the USSR?
>In 1928, on the eve of the first Soviet five-year plan, according to official data of the then labor exchanges, there were 1,365,000 unemployed in the USSR with a population of 148 million people (0.9% unemployed). By the beginning of the first five-year plan in 1929, this number had decreased to 1,242,000 people. On October 1, 1930, the number of unemployed was reduced to 240,000 people. At the beginning of 1930, according to the official historiography of the USSR, the Soviet country managed "for the first time in the history of mankind to eliminate unemployment as a socio-economic phenomenon" - on March 13, 1930, the last referral to work at the Moscow Labor Exchange was issued to a locksmith Mikhail Shkunov. The Moscow Labor Exchange has closed. Unemployment in the USSR was eliminated. The Soviet worker was deprived of the fear of losing his job, and after that the loss of livelihood, students were interning at their future jobs, gaining the necessary skills and a clear future.
>This was achieved by the system of distributing students to enterprises, labor exchanges, employment guarantees from the state and taxes on parasitism.
>How do they cope with the problem of unemployment after 90 years in “communist” China?
>After reports of an increase in youth unemployment, China ceased providing data on it. [2]
>It’s very “progressive” at least, probably in the near future the calculation method will be changed and the problem will be solved in subsequent statistical reports.
>However, in reality, the problem will not go away and at least it will be able to determine the problem by another indicator - by the birth rate.
>Every fifth young Chinese cannot find a job, so how to create a family for the next generation that will continue the work of building communism?
>At the moment, the fertility rate in China is one of the lowest in the world with 1.09 children per woman. For comparison, in Russia this coefficient is equal to 1.14 children per woman, the USA - 1.7, Germany - 1.53, France - 1.8. For simple reproduction of the population, at least 2.1 children per woman are needed.
>The German newspaper Spiegel attributes the decline in the birth rate to the high cost of child care. Women simply cannot afford to give birth. It is reported that in the special administrative regions of China, the number of childless women doubled in the period 2017-2022.[3]
>The growth of unemployment, the anti-social policy of socialism with Chinese characteristics show us that China is an absolutely capitalist country, where the main goal is not the growth of satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society, but profit. The experience of building socialism in the USSR shows what an important task was in the victory of unemployment and, moreover, shows the ways to solve it. But capitalism needs an army of unemployed people to increase exploitation, lower wages, increase the working week, increase production plans, even if this means poverty and death for millions of citizens of their own country. The only way out is to make the transition to the construction of socialism, where there will be no exploitation of man by man and the pursuit of profit, and instead there will be comradely mutual assistance and public ownership of the means of production.

Book-length analysis of the revisionist clique's counterrevolution against Chinese socialism
Pao-yu Ching: From Victory to Defeat
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/N01-From-Victory-to-Defeat-7th-Printing.pdf

>>1809660
The Dengist dismantling of socialism plunged the farm-workers and poor peasants into illiteracy and poverty and extremely uneven development. These provinces make up overwhelmingly China's ethnic minority population.

>>1809713
Oh yes, Deng was a student of Bukharin despite the fact that Deng mentioned Lenin and Stalin all the fucking time and Bukharin never

>>1809712
Any empire that stands against the west is progressive shut the fuck up you retarded piece of shit

>>1809713
>>1809714
Also, how fucking hilarious that "student of Bukharin" Deng supposedly impoverished peasantry when Bukharin's position was (after abandoning immediate collectivization in 1920s) sucking up to kulaks and individual farmers, lmao

>>1809713
>The Latest Achievements of Chinese “Socialism”

Oh NO china has 5% unemployment this is the proof they are not real communists! China will fall any minute now

>>1809715
Correct me if i am wrong, but those are the initial "Qing borders", and those are the 19 century "Qing borders".

You might agree with me that this type of expansionism has nothing to do with modern china or xi jimping thought

>>1809715
how was being a member of the central powers "aligning against the west" you moron? next youre going to tell us al-andalus was historically progressive for fighting the west despite "the west" being a germinal concept at the time & medieval europe resembling the rest of the world in its influence and form

>>1809722
>overthrew the Qing empire
>stronger militant forces bring back the qing empire while the kmt becomes a pro-western liberal organization under chiang

Nothing of value was produced by the Chinese republicans

>>1809725
The central powers were anti-Anglo and helped put the Bolsheviks in power maybe you should rethink your ideals

>>1809713
>The Dengist dismantling of socialism plunged the farm-workers and poor peasants into illiteracy and poverty and extremely uneven development. These provinces make up overwhelmingly China's ethnic minority population.
What exactly was dismantled here? It's not like he privatized the land. The communes were largely an unproductive failure, the Soviets even criticized them for putting the cart before the horse. Do you have about increasing illiteracy in China? That seems highly unlikely.

>>1809729
>The communes were largely an unproductive failure

Lolno, they were productive. Those were organizationally sound and progressive. They never got the high degree of mechanization which accompanied Soviet collectivization, though

Today communes are kind of reborn into village settlements with family units working the commune's land. It's not kolkhoz because it's family unit, but at the same time it has cooperation and "shared land" community

>>1809727
was the Brest-Litovsk treaty historically progressive?

>>1809733
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was NECESSARY as White Guards have pulled the troops off the borders and allowed enemy troops to march forward. Trety of Brest-Litovsk PREVENTED White Guards from receiving help from Germans and shift the blame for betraying Russia onto communists

So yes, treaty was historically progressive as it was a correct decision

>>1809729
>Do you have about increasing illiteracy in China? That seems highly unlikely.
The book Remembering Socialist China, 1949-1976 by Mobo Gao and Dongping Han addresses this history well.

Xi Jinping did nothing and won by default thought

I will utilize the topic of "Brest-Litovski" to dump this post, i finded it very useful do clarify some myths, including the myth of Lenin being a "german agent"

>>1809741
ok youre right, i phrased that poorly. but the point is that brest-litovsk was a necessary compromise with an imperialist power, not a historically progressive one

People blind to China's enormous contribution to progressing human history are the biggest idiots around. That they veil this ignorance in leftist lingo is shameful.

>>1809768
Nations don't exist. Those advancement were made by people.

>>1809713

>Bukharin Inspired Deng Xiaoping to Change China

Yeah thats True not going to argue with you on that one, but still i think what your trying to say, aka NEP style policies for a socialist state is reactionary is a pretty outstanding level of retardation, as the main reason why these policies where implemented in the first place was beacuse of the fact that it was nessesery to do so, consdering that china was, by the 1970s, a partially industrialised state equilvent to 1910s Russian Empire, and due to faltering relations with the USSR, couldn't rely on importing heavy machinary from other socialist states, hense forcing the CPC to turn towards the west in order to advance the process of modernization, hense contributing to the factors that would eventually lead to the Chinese adopting a NEP styled economic system (i think it should also be noted that Lenin, along with many other socialist thinkers at the time supported the NEP, seeing it as a way of advancing a nation towards socialisim and building up the nessercy productive forces needed to sustain the population of a socialist state.)

>Xi stresses decisive role of market in resource allocation [2020, Xinhua News Agency]

Again i think you are misinterpriting what Xi is saying here, as again is he stating that the State, should in no way allow the market to run rougthshot over the country, but we also shouldn't return to the times where the state controls everything (which is what he is refering to when he talks about the old path of planned economy), not that the entire economic planning structure should be done away with all together (basically a form of a mixed market socialisim where private corporations and state owned SOEs coexist with eachother basically).

>The Latest Achievements of Chinese “Socialism”

>le epic youth unemployment rate is super duper high yeee.

Again your being misleading with the statistics your using and your not providing vital context, for an example while youth unemployment may appear to be way to high that is mostly beacuse of the fact that younger people (especially those from the 16-20 bracket) simply spend more time in education rather than immediately getting a job as soon as they hit 16, and this is fairly common for countries which are going from a middle income to a higher income strata like china is as most familes are more than willing to allow for there children to go to higher education while working either at a part time job or in some cases no job at all, as these familes have enough excess income to be able to support said child fairly confortably (plus china's cost of living is a hell of a lot less than in europe or america for instance and will likely only continue to continue on going downwards) oh i think it should also be noted that the stastic the author posted is very old, as current chinese youth unemployment rates sit at 15.3%

Here is the link btw:https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202403/1309177.shtml

>B…but le epic big chungus birthrate drop.

Again thats something which has only begun really recently, like when i mean really recently i mean the chinese population only began to decline in 2020 and there is a hell of alot of time until china has to worry about that.

And the CPC certainly is doing shit to receify this, one is of course reducing manpower reguirements through automating low skill manufacturing jobs (which has already begun to take place) and of course through offering pretty heavy monetary incentives for couples to have children (again time will tell if this will work or not) or of course just simply incubating children in artifcial wombs (again as you can kind of imagine there are a lot of ethical debates surronding this but if the CPC absolutely needs to it can do this)

>Look at my super scary statistic which shows that the CPC no longer represents the interests of the worker, wooooh.

I'm not even going to respond to that one since you don't even provide a link to the source, but even then the CPSU was, by 1963 largely made up of non workers and farmers, and why does it matter if the NPC is made up of careerist politicans in the first place considering that the USSR had the same thing and you seem to consider the USSR a socialist state?

>Le Unemployement rate is at 5.5% THAT MUST MEAN CHIAN IS NOT A SOCIALIST STATE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, also socialisim with chinese charateristics is not socialists, am i going to explain this, no, beacuse i am a salty ultra liberal who thinks reality should bend to my will.

No but in all seriousness how the fuck can you say that, like the statement about there being massive wealth disparinty and poverty is just blatently wrong in all regards, like in regards to Absolute poverty (aka people earning from 2000, to 2020 went from 48% in 2000, to 0% in 2020, and no this isn't beacuse of the fact that the CPC changed the definition of poverty, hell the CPC clasifies poverty at earning $1.69 is higher than what the UN states at $1.90, and again i know you do have to take into acount the cost of local goods).

And also how does not having 0% make you innately reactionary and conservative, like sure i am aware that avalible labour = cheaper labour costs, but even then it does seem a bit of a reductionary argument especially consdering that there are many other reasons for why young people would not want to work other than "ThErE aRe No JoBs" or some bullshit like that.

Also coming back towards the argument that the CPC kowtows to Capitalist interests, well, in all honesty i don't exactly see how they do, like again you could make an argument that China is a state capitalist country (which you did try to say even though i think you massivly missunderstood what a state capitalist state even is as you assumed that in the hierarchy of state that the Capitalists where the top dogs when simply that isn't the case in a state capitlist hierarchy, hell its more so the goverment or party, in the case of china, that is top dog, not the Capitalist) and even then i still do think that the CPC still does believe in the idea's of socialisim, as we have seen the CPC take actions which are really not in the interests of private, capital, aka those being not bailing out big real estate firms when they crashed, and Zero-covid policies.

>>1809707
Not an anarchist and I wasn't calling China chauvinist (because to name an entire nation as chauvinist is silly, there are elements that push a chauvinist line, yes), your previous post reeks of implied Chinese chauvinism (which is ironic because you're probably not even Chinese). That is why it is insulting. You are blindly putting a country on a pedestal while saying that other "lesser" nations can't liberate themselves. Eat shit.

>>1809792
>You are blindly putting a country on a pedestal while saying that other "lesser" nations can't liberate themselves.
And where are these nations that have liberated themselves? Is your home one of them? No? That's what I thought. Shut the fuc up cracker.

>>1809792
>there are elements that push a chauvinist line, yes
What exactly are those "elements"? And no, I don't mean the racist Chinese uncle.

>>1809792
It’s not chauvinism just because they reject Westoid cosmopolitanism nihilism

>>1809782
You have to be at least 18 years of age to post on this site.

>>1809851

God is that seriously all you have to say you fucking mongoloid, like all you can do in response is to level insults because clearly you can’t support your position at all by the looks of it lol.

>>1809617
You should be publicly shamed Cultural Revolution style for reviving this shitty thread.

>>1809890
Do you bleed?

>>1769282
Keked at the editing. I just love the American empire getting btfo'd

>>1810190
Every month for some reason.

>>1768644
I have no idea whether China is becoming socialist, already is socialist or they're capitalists trying to turn socialists. Many conflicting opinions. Are there translated chinese books from currently living scholars that give one interested in that topic a good idea?

>>1810458
simple china is classical fascism













:^)

>>1769491
It's *abolishment* of the present state of things, you idiot.

>>1810458
I highly recommend the bibliographies of Mobo Gao and Pau-yu Ching:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/723778.Mobo_C_F_Gao
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7728759.Pao_Yu_Ching

>>1810458

To be honest the responses are really going to depend on what left-wing politcal sect the person belongs to.

Anarchists will largely argue that China is not socialist nor will it ever be socialist beacuse the State is inherently non-socialistic.

MLs will argue that China is state capitalist (which basically means that unlike western capitalists states where the porkies are the people in control of the country, in a state capitalist state the goverment, or the party in this case are still the top dogs and the porkies awnser to the party or the goverment instead of it being the other way around)

Though again with Mls i think it should be noted that many MLs (including myself) believe that china is in a form of "Developmental socialism" aka in order to achieve socialisim you need to build up your industrial and techonological base to a degree where goods production (e.g. food, comsumer goods, ect) is sufficently large enough to allow for the transition to a socialist economic model (china is currently in the process of transition from a capitalist model to that of a socialist one, we see this in the fact that the CPC in recent years has more so been focused on increasing the general quality of life for its people rather than continuing to build up productive forces as it already has more than enough productive forces to begin the process towards neuturing the porkies and increasing the living standards of its citzens to that of a middle class living standard, along with tighting labour regulations.)

Tl,DR, China is a state capitalist economy in the process of transition to that of a Market Socialist Economic structure, now will this process happen overnight, hell no, but it will gradually happen.

Now i think i should clarify that i don't think will see massive amounts of "Re-nationalization" within china, but i don't think that means that the way chinese private enterprises will be run will be in the current, capitalistic model, in all honesty i see the CPC gradually "Encouraging" (by which i mean, you WILL do this or your social credit score gets screwed with) private companies to opt into ESOP progams (basically it stands for Employee stock ownership Programs and its something that the CPC has been pushing fairly hard for quite some time) now again i think it should fairly noted that ESOPS have mostly been targetted at large private firms (as they don't tend to work all that well with small buisnesses beacuse of the fact that they tend to cost to much) so yeah, but i wouldn't be to surpised if in the near future (like 2030-2040) the CPC begins to implement policies mandating ESOP ownership for private enterprisies of more than 1000 employees, again there are also non-ideological reasons for this i think it should be noted, ESOPS tend to perform better economically as surpisingly enough giving an employee a stake in the company they work for is a good way of increasing productivity, who would of thought?

>>1810774

Stock ownership by employees is actually pretty supported by orthodox economics; it resolves the principal-agent problem and empirically is usually associated with better economic results.

>>1810782

Yeah but it's something that porkies like to keep to a minium and is something which is barely practicied in the western world beacuse it undermines the control of the CEO and the Executives as Employees tend to care a lot more about working conditions and safety in comparison to regular shareholders that only give a shit about dividends, hense it is more harder for a CEO to control his workforce if they have voting rights wtihin the corporation, this is why ESOPs are very rare in the west and while they are still rare in china (with apparently like 15% of private corporations offering ESOP stock options in 2015, something which has probably grown since then but still) i do think the CPC will likely begin to expand on the ESOP system(it already has as companies that Implement ESOP programs get tax cuts if i remember corrects) Likely requiring corporations to have a certain percentage of its company to be owned by its employees (likely starting off low at like 10-15% at first, then gradually expanding till reaching more than 100% most preferably or at least a majority share old of 51%)

>>1768716
Fighting ghosts in your mind
>>1768721
Best take on China I've read in a long time

>>1769282
We really are about to go to war, aren't we?

>>1768721

I mean i do agree there is certainly a chance that China could end up just turning into a Soc-dem state, but i think thats unlikely nor do i think the CPC will basically turn into "Capitalisims Psycharatrist" as for the former, social democracy is only possible if the exploitation of labour can be "outsourced" to other countries (which the western european states, the major social democratic states, could do) this is something which china cannot, nor seems interested, in doing, again, the CPC seem to be more interested in engaging in "mutually benefical" diplomacy rather than "lE EpIc SoFt ImPeRiAlIsM" that the social democratic states engaged in order to keep the Capitalist Class happy, this can largely be seen in China's "Belt and road" initative along with many other projects in africa, which, in laymens terms, is basically the chinese saying "You get schools, hospitals, and other infrastructural facilities, in exchange, we get to take SOME of your natural resources to feed our industries at home." which while is certainly NOT the chinese being virtuous by any means but is certainly not the chinese engaging in imperialisim like the western world (or soft imperialisim in the case of the modern western goverments) as the states that engaging with the Chinese do receive tangible benefits to there country in the form of industrial investment which helps for these countries (often post imperialists states that where still getting exploited by the west) to develop and improve the lives of there people and actually industrialise there respective countries, well its no real surpise why the west is losing a shit tone of influence in the third world.

Another reason for why i don't think china will become social democratic (even if Xi dies) is mostly just due to the fact that there aren't really a whole lot of people within the CPC that you can really say are Soc-dems, and even then most of those sorta people where either killed or forced to keep there heads down when Xi purged the party in the purge of 2015.

TL;Dr, I do agree there is a CHANCE that the CPC could potentially become capitalisims fireman but i think its extremely fucking unliekly, and in all honesty i think that sorta notion within the CPC has dimished considerbly since the 2010s (Aka due to Xi's purges and also due to the absolute shitstorm the western world, and more particularly, america, have become mostly thanks to uncontrolled, late stage capitalisim) which i think will be something the CPC will want to avoid at all costs in my opinion, aka they don't want to make the same mistakes as the americans.

>>1810928
>there is certainly a chance that China could end up just turning into a Soc-dem state
nonsense

>>1810943

>nonsense.

Yeah i'm not going to lie the chance of china becoming a soc dem state and the CPC capitalisims fireman is increadibly fucking small (like less than 5%) but its still something that could happen, even if the chance of that happening is really fucking low, though at this point i don't think it will happen even if Xi dies.

A simple way to materially ground thoughts on China in favour and against vibes based idealism is the party position on property. Currently 'loaned out' to capital but still ultimately all in the legal hands of state and thus party as the final arbiter and holder of leverage. Thus popular control of the final lever of the economy.
Even in a perfected social democracy with a 1000-term FDR reich - the enshrinement of private property puts the interests of the creditor, rentier and banker above the state. Whose legally protected wealth will be become the state and erode such a counterfactual just as in Europe in reality
Should the CPC ever surrender this control of property as judge, jury and executioner of rents; then its over. Until that happens, China remains structurally socialist from a vulgar material measurement however bad faith individual actors within its political economy are.