People's Republic of China general

praise xi fuck mao

The rock itself will be fine. The parasites on it's surface are all damned to hell.

Mao literally had him thrown in prison and called him a rightist wrecker.

Why? The only thing Deng changed is style of reforms.

Instead of the sweeping and radical decrees - testing them out small-scale and going from there.

Not a single thing he did was a policy he came up with himself during his tenure.

Go home, Gang of Four, you were shot

Too bad Deng wasn’t.

Not his fault he was a materialist and not an idealist

Was Stalin an idealist?

Dumping some stuff

do you have the Ismail /china/ reading list? anyone?

I don't. He always recommends this book though

Ultra-left deviationists. All of you.

I didn’t suggest that. The point is that Stalin developed the productive forces without resorting to capitalism. Also resorting to capitalism (like Deng did) makes you a capitalist roader.

Stalin's government was very good. Macroeconomy was very good. Country rose from destruction of WW1 and civil war became second largest economy in the world with powerful industry, strong purchasing power, advanced science, high life expectancy,high birthrate and young,large educated population.
Problem is that Brezhnev era has proven that at certain point Stalinist model of economy that is focus on heavy full state control of the economy factories is not sustainable. Grasping the large, letting go of the small is perfect solution.

Attached: Soviet pretty rich tbh.png (261x259, 32.06K)

The Soviets were able to do that because the material realities in Russia at the time were different from China.
China in 1949 had less industry than Russia had in 1917 or even 1922 (For sources ill have to check my pdfs - I don't have them right here). For reference; when Chinese troops crossed into Korea, they weren't capable of producing even a single tank.
Likewise, they didn't have access to the world's largest reserves of energy resources. And what they did have, they had to share with more people.
From a foreign relations standpoint China was worse off than Russia after their respective civil wars ended: Unlike the USSR, there were were no nearby (willing) trading partners; China was a pariah and effectively under embargo, with most of the world only recognizing the ROC; Not that they had much to export, as China was even more impoverished than Russia.
For years they were able to secure a trickle of aid from the USSR - which itself was recovering from the fascist invasion, which had destroyed up to 70% of the urban areas west of the Urals.
Then, following the Sino-Soviet split the supply of Soviet investment and expertise dried up, and they were effectively on their own, only being recognized by the US in [b]1979.[/b]
This was also during the aftermath of the cultural revolution, which had upended China's fragile academia, and from which they were just beginning to recover.

It's against this backdrop that Deng and his allies decided to push for reforms that would let western investments and technology develop and modernize China.

Attached: 38d8120227271fd113223ee99a22e67f1daaf9e43bb5f1896ced02a9dfdfacbf.jpg (948x711, 29.9K)

Attached: 5ad96ada6d5f711b14c6df6805ebdf8606eefa55514eed1fd3f0dd86472bb043.gif (250x250, 334.93K)

This stupid joke only works on half chan because half chan is rip of japanese websites and was originally created for anime discussio. Zig Forums is ripp of reddit and was designed so that boards would be created by users, rather than any specific threads like anime in hafl chans case.

This stupid joke only works on half chan because half chan is rip of japanese websites and was originally created for anime discussio. Zig Forums is ripp of reddit and was designed so that boards would be created by users, rather than any specific threads like anime in hafl chans case.

Not saying this holds true for Deng but pointing at the fact he served in the Communist Party for a long time is a pretty weak defense, seeing as plenty of people who turned into opportunists and class traitors throughout the history of socialism had been involved for a long time prior to that.

Maybe, but Deng was member of communist party for thirty years before it took power in China. As did many other members of Chinese politburo during Deg's time, some even participated in the long march, and third of them including Deng studied communism in Moscow.
And so did Den'gs successor.

Point is that, since most of these people actually fought for communism and studied it excessively I am inclined to somewhat trust them.

...

Jim Watkins is not jap

I understand the course of action Deng took from a rational standpoint but China is clearly not socialist, come on now.

So ahh what the fuck do they even do there? Do they have workplace democracy on any of their industries?

Nice screenshot. Here's some additional evidence.

Attached: Sovietwages.png (615x614, 178.12K)

Alright here is a book called the battle for china's past about the Mao era and the two propaganda machines that are against it. Another book I haven't read yet but want to, and an article about the rate of profit in China as compared to the US and Japan.
Chuang is a good website to read although they don't post too often. I should say I'm also learning Chinese although I started not too long ago so I'm very much a newbie. Even though China is capitalist I still would love to work there.
Also I'm currently watching the film Mardi Gras: Made in China which is very sad so far. I watched A Touch of Sin last weekend, it was pretty good. A Touch of Sin can be pirated but Mardi Gras I could only find on Amazon.

I'm sure this thread will have a lot of BASED XI vs China is capitalist banter. I really don't understand Ismail's stance at all, he plainly admits there is a bourgeoisie, commodity production, labor market, reserve army of labor, private utilities, rich people in the CCP, etc, but still insists they are socialist. The Losurdo article I've seen referenced is literally neo-lib tier bs about markets being necessary for developing, China is in NEP, and a blatantly anti-marxist conception of "political capital" opposed to economic capital. Just because the government leases the land the businesses exploit workers on means its socialist? I don't see the logic.

(me)
Not to mention China's shitty foreign policy going back to the Vietnam war and the absolutely crucial role they play in sustaining global capitalism. Again, even if they are somehow deserving of the label socialist, they are responsible for providing the capitalists with massive amounts of cheap labor which they use for profits and selling cheap shit to placate the masses.
Also, nothing in Antiduhring, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wages Price and Profit, or any other theory I've read offers a criteria of socialism that China even remotely fits. (Other than Leninist government with commie aesthetics.) Also The Governance of China has no value whatsoever

It has a capitalist economy in many spheres but to talk about “Chinese neoliberalism” as some Western Marxists like David Harvey is just asinine. I would say that China is something beyond even the semi-Georgist total industrial capitalism that Marx theorized as at least a possibility. True, Marx saw measures like state-control over land/rent as a likely necessity for capitalism to develop industrial agriculture to its utmost perfection but on the other hand, China has massive and significant social investment and planning.

There isn’t a Western government that handles investment in that way most OECD countries have 90% of the investment done by private entities. Hence, Michael Roberts points out the uselessness of Keynesianism in the aftermath of post-Keynesian studies showing how investment rather than consumption drives economies. The government can never spend enough, it can never cut enough gibs checks necessary to power an economy out of a dry spell while keeping production and investment in private hands. Quite frankly, the massive success that China has had should lead us to claim that socialism deserves at least some credit for it.

There is no real comparable political economy to what China has in the present world. Even when Keynesians talk about how Keynes “considered” socialized investment in a scattered way it was never more than pure theory. He also praised Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” which would give some indication of where his real theoretical proclivities laid.

thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/chinas-keynesian-policies/
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/07/china-workshop-challenging-the-misconceptions/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=15159&relatedposts_position=0

I don’t think that China has yet even reached the lower-stage of communism in its most primitive phase but to think that there isn’t an underlying socialist structural element in their economy is just ultra-left dogmatism. China would be more properly called an actual mixed economy instead of the capitalist welfare states that Western economists try to pass off as mixed economies when all the evidence flies in the face of that.

(me again)
So you guys don't have to pick through the book, here are some interesting quotes:

research done jointly by the Research Office of the State Council, the Research Office of the Central Party School and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 90 per cent of the more than 3,000 billionaires in China are the so-called ‘princelings’, sons and daughters of high-ranking party officials (Boxun 2006a).

means of production are no longer publicly owned and when workers are no longer supposed to be the owners of these properties, the relationship between the trade unions and the state then become antagonistic. Deng saw clearly what the problems would be. So in 1980 he ordered the abolition of the Four Big Freedoms. In 1982 when the Chinese Constitution was amended, the clause of the Four Big Freedoms, together with the freedom to strike, was stricken out (Hu 2004).

(all me)

my recent research in Long Bow Village suggest that many rural
people think that even if China had retained its collective system they would have had the same kind of living standard as they have now.
Village from 1966 to 2003, had no doubt this when I interviewed him
in February 2005. He had built a huge and comfortable two-story
house during the 1980s, but he insisted that he would have done the same if Maoist policies had continued.
people actually think they could have done even better, and for
everyone. The survey was carried out in a county that had above
average living standards at the time of research in 2000. Among the 200 questionnaires returned (out of 208), only 11 per cent agreed that living standards had gone up a lot since the reforms. In contrast, 55 per cent of the respondents thought that their standards of living had not gone up much, 11.5 per cent felt they had not risen at all, and 22.5 per cent stated that they were worse off since the reforms (Zhuo Yi 2003). Similarly, 41.5 per cent of them stated both that their living standard would have been more or less the same and the societal habits and customs (shehui fenqi) would have been much better if Maoist policies had continued. About 90 per cent of the respondents thought that in terms
of healthcare, agricultural mechanization, irrigation improvement and technical innovation, reform policies have made the situation worse.

good in the past was not the fault of Mao, they would argue. The fact that they do have them now is not to Deng’s credit either, they would say. Some of these consumer goods were not even invented then. The fact that grain yields are higher now than those during the era of Mao was not because they had no incentive to work hard then, as suggested by economic rationalists. The land yields more now because chemicals are used more extensively and intensively.

(1982: 1260) declared that the socialist transformation of rural China into a collective system was necessary and absolutely correct. But a year later in 1983 the CCP issued a command to dismantle the collective system, ordered the rural organizations to change the collectivist name of commune to xiang (township – a term used in pre-1949 China) and distribute land among households even though many were opposed to this. Some resisted the pressure, and there are still around 2,000 villages that have kept the collective system; these include Liu Village and Nanjie in Henan, Huaxi in Jiangsu, Daqiu in Tianjin, Henhe and Doudian in Beijing, Zhouzhuang, Banbidian in Hebei, Honglin in Hubei, Houshi in Dalian, Yankou and Ronggui in Guangdong, Tengtou and Wanhai in Zhejiang

I'm trying to contribute as much as I can to this thread because I think it's a very important subject and is very interesting to me, and I'm genuinely curious what Dengists have to say.

Yeah I definitely don't agree with people who call the PRC a neoliberal hellhole, but these are quantitative differences. The fact that their loans to African countries are easier to pay off is the result of market competition, they can use that to undercut Western investors and gain a foothold where there wasn't one before. Same with the credit expansions, when the entire capitalist world goes into crisis, when you have a centralized authority like the CPC which is able to act rationally (unlike western countries which have competing bourgeois interests which stall the government at crucial times) they can respond to crises in a way that lets them come out stronger. Also, yes I agree that there is an underlying element, due to the remnants of the Mao era and the people in the country who are still struggling to advance class struggle.

Also the notion of developing the productive forces is textbook revisionism at best and capitalist roading at worst.

I would say they are qualitative as well, of course, China is better off than some pro-Western neo-liberal kleptocratic Third World state but nominal wages are certainly worse than developed countries like Britain and the US that have long-standing neoliberal policy regimes. You brought up the fact that Chinese business-owners lease land from the government, for instance, although it was a popular idea in the 19th century I am not aware of any Western government that owns a major part or a majority of commercially-leased land. Singapore and possibly Hong Kong are the only Western-aligned states that I know of that even come close to the ideal of classical political economy in seeking a capitalist system that seeks to minimize ground-rent.

Hoxha made similar arguments regarding Soviet and Chinese social-imperialism–I think this point broadly holds true.

On the other hand, I think there are aspects of the Leninist theory of Imperialism that maybe questionable. Generally, bank loans are less profitable than industrial enterprise, in fact, Marx defined profit of enterprise as gross-profit minus interest. I've thought many ways about it and a pure economic financial imperialism can exist in this sense.

Although a pure financial imperialism can exist I'm too tired to layout a thought experiment for it here in the main its practical political function is to break down barriers to trade, fdi, and profit expatriation.

A real world example: Germany only has one international bank of any significance (Deutsche Bank) the US government under both Obama and Trump have hit it with fines partially for wrong-doing and partially in a shadow trade-war between the two countries. It seems to me that control over currency and sovereign debt are the main weapons of German financial imperialism but these things are mainly tools to ensure big profits to big industrial firms via massive export-drives and not to line the pockets of bankers.

Chinese "imperialism" probably acts in a similar manner. But whether monopoly firms behave and operate in the way that Lenin theorized is unclear–Marx and Engels themselves are astonishingly vague on this point. Likewise, it isn't clear that small firms/medium firms are innocent of the charge of imperialism but I'm a bit too tired to get into that.

Lenin's empirical case was actually quite good in his time: gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/imperialism_forcirculation_3.pdf

But, what parts still apply is unclear. The biggest financial imperialists today (US, Britain) are actually net capital-importers. Third world kleptocrats for instance use the banking systems of both countries to store their ill-gotten gains away from the prying eyes and fingers of their own people. Detrimental as it maybe it isn't financial imperialism of the type that Lenin described. To my knowledge, China does not behave in this manner on a significant scale. Even the off-shore system in Hong Kong is an artifact of British colonialism still integrated into the British financial "spider-web"

Mainland China, ironically, imports capital from Hong Kong.

Attached: PRCpepe.jpg (225x225, 8.72K)

...

codemonkey is asian, but not Japanese, is he? I allways believed he is malaysian bourg kid or something like that

What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Poverty is not socialism, still less communism.

— Deng Xiaoping, speech discussing Marxist theory at a Central Committee plenum, 30 June 1984

Attached: tumblr_nb6afkcQry1r47naso1_400.jpg (315x300, 21.61K)

He doesn't explain how socialism is supposed to achieve the development of productive forces, he just says they are developing and calls it socialism. He - and his successors - never bothered to explain the difference of the "primary stage of socialism" and socialism proper, nor did he ever explain if his politics are just another NEP. Everything is see from the Chinese is vague and obsfucating, opens up more questions than answers, maybe deliberately so.

post this in the warsaw pact thread too

Gucci communism is the way of the future.

Attached: gucci.jpg (1018x1200, 180.98K)

OH NO-NO-NONONONNONONONONONONN
nytimes.com/2019/01/09/health/obesity-china-coke.html

in later marxist historiography of the post-war period (perhaps even earlier, as i'm not well informed) these would be called the comprador class which are natives that cooperate with the imperial countries to siphon off wealth from their country while taking a class for themselves.

Why doesn't China attempt to make any of their own designer brands?

china has tons of knock offs of every thing. A lot of people only pay for the brand, thought. Marketing is everything.

...

reading, which has become my way of life. Reading invigorates my mind, gives
me inspiration and cultivates my moral force." -Xi Jinping

Just wanted to remind you all to read.

Attached: 584be76c9348a282db9585c8.png (349x437, 55.77K)

Now we know for certain that he isn’t a Maoist

kek

😂👌💯

I don't get the joke

Mao has a quote saying reading too much is bad

You guys realize that quote is terribly taken out of context and it's not really what he meant?

Attached: 17f.png (488x516, 519.53K)

Tell me whatever you want,but I dont see China defeating USA by GDP measures. China's economy today is much less developed relative to Japan's in 1989. It is not easy to compare economies over different periods of time but the best method for me has been to look at per capita GDP (PPP-adjusted) relative to the U.S. In 1989, Japan's per capita GDP was roughly 80% of the U.S. (this would peak two years later at around 85%). In 2015, China's per capita GDP is only roughly one-fifth of the U.S. Even if we ignore the less well-off interior and look at prosperous Guangdong province, its per capita GDP comes out to only around one-third.
If China's economy is less developed than Japan in 1989 how China can overcome USA by today's standarts?

But they already did. They're the biggest economy by PPP and on their way to surpass them in nominal GDP. If the US has a crash and China doesn't it could happen within a decade.
The comparison with Japan is nonsensical since China's population is significantly larger. They only need 1/4th of the USA's GDP per capita (nominal) to surpass them.

Furthermore China is very technologically advanced nuclear powered space exploring country. Thank uncle Joe for that.

I forgot mention by nominal but whatever, Zig Forums respects my personal opinion,right?

This is kind of a known unknown since America seems to be on the verge of shitting the bed.

Have you seen the DOW thread, my nigga?
America IS in the shit rn

Yeah I just mean whether the impact turns out to be 2008 or Great Depression tier remains to be seen. It's not looking good for them though.
I wonder if Trump is such a dumbass that he doesn't realise that the shutdown is going to exacerbate it massively or if he's been told of exactly what's around the corner and intends on going full dictator.

As per Marx: (From German Ideology)
China is socialist not because it's some sort of classless utopia, but because it's policies - mainly in the field of economic autarchy, and elevating the living standards of the Chinese people - are vital to abolishing the present state of things.
Without advanced productive forces able to satisfy local demand it's impossible to abolish the key force underlying capitalism; commodity production.
This is in contrast to reactionary states like Russia, the US, the EU, etc. and - nowadays - Brazil which have vested interests in reinforcing the existing global system of economic specialization, finance capital and the exploitation of surplus value. Likewise, each of those states have (With the exception of Brazil until now) - in recent years - handed over control of their respective economies to oligarchs and other capitalist interests, often under the guise of austerity. With detrimental effects to the workers in those countries.

Contrast this to China where the Communist Party not only continues to control the commanding heights of the economy, but has actually expanded this control in recent years. All while livings standards continue to soar, and income inequality (both regional and between rural and urban regions) continues to decrease,
That said, I'm not arguing that everything the CPC does is socialist, or that there is no class conflict and corruption, or that they're somehow altruists and not acting in their own class interests as nomenklatura.

GDP per capita isn't everything. China's economy today has already surpassed Japan (1989) in terms of raw industrial output and infrastructure.
China has extreme unequal development, in that it's coastal regions are roughly on par with the rest of East Asia (bar pollution), but it's rural regions are lagging - sometimes decades - behind the rest of the country.

Attached: 302b7b95632ac0058444096be8c91189c816a96615cc1a259c173caecad5828b.jpg (595x335, 132.13K)

Do anyone here learn Mandarin?
I have 憂鬱 btw

Is this supposed to be a comedy?

Where we should look up to? R*java?

If everything is shit, then it's shit. You aren't going with this "oh, maybe this one is a bit less shitty" mentality.

我做
but I just started recently

We shouldn't 'look up' to anything or anyone. Rojäva is an example of people organising themselves in a socialist manner based on their conditions. It is what we must all do after the revolution. Socialism in the US would look very different to socialism in Uganda, for example. Rojäva is a great case study and we can see what works and what doesn't, but it doesn't need to be a guide in any sense of the word.

rojava is a great case study in how to carve out a kurdish zion in syria with the aid of the US. it isn't socialist at all
china should in fact be looked up to for opposing imperialism and pulling millions of people out of poverty

Literally not possible with global supply chains

Revolutionary People's Wars my man

Attached: IMG_20181120_180207.jpg (4002x3024 640.5 KB, 1.93M)

China is an authoritarian commie shithole with concentration camps and no free speech

WRONG anti-imperialism.org/2018/09/21/china-a-modern-social-imperialist-power-cpimaoist/

...

Attached: smug.png (340x271, 110.35K)

wow what a useless article that doesn't say anything

Open the pdf, it's 30 pages you dumbo

Cant tell you are serious or not

我也爱学说中文。

bump to remind people to stop making separate chinese threads

Reposting links from another thread

business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-chinas-most-dangerous-export-is-anti-market-ideology-and-were-buying-it

washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/if-only-nixon-could-go-to-china-could-only-trump-import-socialism

Porky's scared.

They think the guy who let Vietnam become communist would stop china from doing so?

I have to see anyone adequately explain to me what's so bad about commodity production in socialist states.

It's more than just commodity production, the point of socialism is that labor isn't a commodity and production is done according to need instead of exchange. If China's commodity production was limited to shit like video games then it wouldn't matter, but it isn't limited. I guess its the problem of a quantitative change becoming a qualitative one - some people think the commanding heights meme and one party rule means they are still socialist

This. That dwarf is a prime example of reactionary revisionism

Right. Instead of talking down on him he and his friends fell for the exact sugar coated bullets Mao warned china about and completely abandoned even the tiniest socialist policies and went full fascist instead. They "honor" Mao by doing the exact oposite of what he and communists wanted but without blaming him for anything to keep themselves legitimate

Attached: 45404784112341354120.JPG (678x537, 36.32K)

Chinese Scientist May Face Death Penalty in China for Gene-Editing Babies

gizmodo.com/chinese-scientist-who-created-crispr-babies-could-face-1831553751
bgr.com/2019/01/07/he-jiankui-armed-guard-punishment/
businessinsider.com/timeline-chinese-scientist-claims-crispr-babies-2019-1
anarchimedia.com/2019/01/08/scientist-may-face-death-penalty-in-china-for-gene-editing-babies/
zmescience.com/science/news-science/death-penalty-chinese-scientist-04233/
dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/752233/

Attached: He-Jiankui-752233.jpg (620x413, 37.16K)

So what is the primary reason China is against this? Circumventing ethics or spooked out their mind?

Designer babies made by the rich

I still think Dengoids should be decapitated btw

Communists with Dengoid characteristics*

A new law aims to stop the booing of China’s national anthem
archive.is/m6JBA
what do you think? should the CPC being doing stuff like this?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720, 2.51M)

==WHY BLACK MAN NO STAN== tier.