Have you thanked Xi Dada yet?
Chinese war on global warming
Other urls found in this thread:
It's like 40 fucking degrees outside he hasn't saved shit.
Would dropping a nuke or two into a volcano to activate it help? Because the particles would block the sunlight?
How is he doing it anyway? China is one of the biggest polluter out there through sheer numbers.
No as nukes are useless against volcanoes.
ME ME WANT BEEFVATS! ME ME WANT OXYGEN GMOS!!!
Thanks Xi Dada
Build nuclear god damn it
Russia is building few nuclear power plants in China, thought.
Are you fucking insane?
I guarantee you come from a country with a higher per capita carbon footprint
Having said that I remember reading one very correct post. Bassically in the future socialist society can not live of what the earth can provide and must harvest nergy from cosmos.
Somehow crash a comet into the ocean, using nukes to direct it's course.
Nuke the moon and let the dust block some of the sun as it collects around the Earth.
Use Mr. Bruns' idea and but even bigger, a huge solar sail that we can deploy in space and cover the entire Earth in night for a few hours at a time.
Detonate comerade Yellowstone (with a nuke).
Seed shitloads of clouds turning the world into London.
Ecostalinism and gulag every American and Chinese (meaning they are forcibly sent to areas where there is desertification to plant and take care of trees or fight fires in the arctic)
Just fucking nuke everything and see what happens.
Trains for everything
I think I'm out of ideas here brehs.
China's building more nuke plants than any other country rn.
yeah its also the country with the most people in the world you dumb liberal
That title is absolutely bizarre. The US was always notorious for being the most opposed to fighting climate change and also one of the worst CO2 emmitters.
Yes, but you know. 'Merica
You guys think really that dictator like Xi are true communist ?
Xi is a hardline Dengist, while Zemin was outright neoliberal. He certainly is pointing in the right way.
I just want to know or see the results/data you fucking maoists.
Here. You also have to take in account China is where large part of world manufacturing is while the rest of western world uses much more of its CO2 output for citizens.
I dunno man
as long as china still use capitalism system and no freedom . for me it's not real communism
Have you seen actual interviews of how chinese feel about their country. Muh freedom and democracy propaganda is getting old no countries is taking the bait anymore.
Thanks. Is there one that is also based on the time scale? The rate of increase for China should be decreasing by now.
As long as Economic still grow
people will not complain anything. China economic start to stop grow fast like a rocket now
we will see changing soon
Unlike western country china cares about its citizens. They had lifted millions from poverty to a point that there are more homeless people in the US than in china.
You realize that there's quite an active labor movement opposed to the state mandated unions right? Marxist students getting arrested for helping workers organize, etc. I honestly don't know where all this china shilling came from but it's grossly misinformed
Or let's do artificial clouds. Made of the same thing as regular clouds and cloud production can be switched on and off instantly. Very simple technology. But since people aren't individual customers for clouds, this is not something that just happens without the state paying the bill.
Source? As far as i know marxism is a mandatory teaching in chinese schools
That's just the way it is in ML states. Eastern bloc too had various non state workers movements, but likewise they got banned. That doesn't mean that the state is against workers. It's more like a mix of something like social democrats (Dengist), Marxist and outright neoliberals. Obviously the last one is the most dangerous to a worker movement.
Ok Mr Ping.
The Ozone layer doesn't care about per capita. All that matters is raw tonnage. China iss the single largest producer of co2 in the world, whereas a higher "per capita" nation like Australia produces merely 1% of global co2. Guess which one would make no difference whatsoever if it entirely stopped producing co2.
Much of the world has strict restrictions on carbon production, including Japan, who use "green" coal fired power stations that aim to reduce emissions. China has been caught lacking, and simply pumps and dumps the environment. While it is wrong that the west uses Chinese business for manufacturing, there's no excuse for that level of environmental destruction, let alone praise for China and their "environmental heroism."
Maoists never cease to amaze me
I think per capita is shit too, it ignorees the inequality within a country. Their borders are arbitraryand the only thing that counts is what each person produces and I think there is a very strong corellation between co2 contamination and income.
Found the weeb
Go back watching anime and learning kanji
Except unlike the countries of the Warsaw Pact China is capitalist, not socialist. A capitalist state is by definition a bourgeois state and against the interests of workers.
Yeah and you’ve got dirt poor rednecks in the US saying they don’t want socialism. Clearly this means that socialism is bad. If China were a traditional ML state (ie socialist but without real democracy) that would be one thing. But in a capitalist state that doesn’t even have bourgeois democracy, workers saying they have no interest in democracy are just actively opposing their own interests, just like those American rednecks.
Well, pick up any product you want and see where it's made. I'm guessing majority of it won't be outside of China. And if China simply banned them all from the nation, they would just produce the same co2 somewhere.
Was Russia bourgeois under the NEP? It's not like you have an on/off switch of bourg and proletariat control. There were various permits for "capitalism" under USSR like there are various for "socialism" under China. I think the average worker rather supported the market reforms more than outright poverty for two decades after the revolution. If you really want socialism to survive, workers all over the society should have a say; not a group of privileged party members, who in my view indeed are workers, but very privileged ones who are alien to the society as a whole.
prove to me he's not the faggot with the giant magnifying glass
based and redpilled
Need to blowup the yellow stone to achieve maximum freedom in America. Reckon that'll solve two problems in one blow
I mean come on, it's not that all global warming is fault of China like the right-wing says, because even if China is the biggest contaminator, we still buy its products and incentive that behavior.
But now we're supposed to admire China for """fighting climate change"""????? This board get's more stupid everyday I swear; soon every topic will be a debate between le meme ideologies of nazbols, stalinists and unapologetic dick suckers of China
You’re right, there isn’t an off/on switch, and that’s why Russia wasn’t bourgeois under the NEP, and also why China is bourgeois today. Upon the reintroduction of capitalism in a socialist country it takes time for the bourgeoisie to re-amass wealth and power. The NEP wasn’t in place long enough for this to happen, but Chinese capitalism has been. The two aren’t comparable, the NEP was only in place for a few years, and none of the NEP men accumulated nearly as much wealth as the Chinese big bourgeoisie has in the past 40 years of Chinese capitalism. To suggest that China is still socialist in any meaningful way is to argue that the workers can rule a capitalist society. Believe this if you want, but don’t try to claim you’re a Marxist, since that violence some of the most basic concepts in Marxism and historical materialism.
Not nearly on the same scale. Over two thirds of China’s industry is private. If China is socialist then so is France, since they have similar levels of public ownership.
Sure they did, and they were right to. Don’t misunderstand me, I think Deng absolutely made the right decision. Capitalism was probably exactly what China needed at that point, but like capitalism anywhere else it eventually outlives its usefulness and becomes a barrier to human wellbeing and emancipation rather than a promoter of it. The same thing happened in Europe in the 19th century. I don’t hold it against Deng for doing what he did, what pisses me off is people who’d rather bury their head in the sand and insist that China is somehow still socialist despite all evidence to the contrary. I’ll admit the good Dengism did for China, but people need to see that like any other form of capitalism, it made China into a bourgeois state that will eventually need to be overthrown by a worker’s revolution. (Inb4 I get a ban for sayin that overthrowing capitalism is a good thing. I’m by no means advocating pro-western or liberal regime change).
Funny you say that considering China is run by a clique of privileged party members, many of whom are literal porkies.
Well, the structure of Chinese government resembles more that of a ML regime than a liberal one. Of course there are different capitalist political structures that resemble the Chinese one like that of Singapore, but they come from a different historical place. If China had a "full on" capitalist restoration they would abandon Marxism as a whole. Not that there aren't tries to do that. Once Deng - in my view an important revolutionary and Marxist - died we had Zemin - Neoliberal in everything but name - who outright purged people from party and allowed capitalist in. The revisionism continues to this day, as would be expected, but that doesn't mean an outright capitalist state. It's more in a darkspot between a worker and capitalist state. Not a goon spot to hold.
I don't know from where you got that number. I'm guessing employment in which indeed majority is in private sector. The thing is that those private companies are kinda under the wing of CPC, with party members having special offices in them. The SOE are the largest enterprises in China, being comparable to various largest western companies like Apple or Amazon. See the global fortune 500 if you don't believe me.
I mean this is kinda my view. I think maybe reformism could work in China, but I wouldn't count on it.
I did take a look in the past and only something to 4% of CPC are billionaires. "tradesmen" were a more alarming number with around 20%. And yes, party bureaucrats are the thing that keeps ML state in China. Xi actually reduced the privileges the party members could hold.
Of course 1.5 billion people are going to produce more CO2 than 20 million people. How insanely retarded are you imbeciles?
Catposter I appreciate some of your posts but why you gotta write shit like this in between lmao
He's right though.
He's implying that Western parliaments are real democracy with that.
I saw it more in line of both of them being horseshit.
No I’m not, I’m just saying that ML states weren’t democracies, which is true. I don’t believe bourgeois democracies are real democracies either.
Fuck, you are retarded.
Imagine europe, USA, Canada, and Australia added together (that's not even the size of China's population yet), count them as one country. Then compare the CO2 with China. Now we're talking.
China has deliberative democracy though. chinafile.com
Xi isn't a dictator.
Well yeah they didn't get to real communism yet, and they don't claim to have.
shut the fuck up liberal
china has more than one billion people, why should it emit zero CO2 while the smaller western countries (which together add up to a billion) dont
Based and Xi Pilled.
China doesn't even claim they reach socialism yet. What they claim is that they are being truthful and walks towards socialism, and I can see that.
The idea that capitalism can just turn into socialism of its own accord, or that a socialist state can rule over a capitalist economy, goes against both Marxism and common sense.
aren't they using dialectics? According to Marx don't you need to go through capitalism to get to socialism?
Duh, that's the function of marxist vanguard party that holds the ideology dearly, and that makes the biggest difference between ML states and socdems. They have done shitloads of socialist things lately, particularly in reducing urban-rural divide. They spent a lot of money to build massive infrastructures with no hope of return, just to improve people's quality of life in rural area. That is some massive redistribution scheme. Private companies are encouraged by the state to make investments that benefit the public, etc. The ratio of public/private companies matter little. The thing is that private companies and capitals don't hold any political power, that is firmly in the hands of the state.
China is a bastion of difficulty re: global warming. Their economy needs to try A2G, I think. They could use some load-leveling concrete kinetics too, monstrosities though such structures are.
Yellowstone activation is a fallback plan against global warming. Some modern scientists are suicidally altruistic people. I love them, and they are so very virtuous, but they’re a little like living nukes themselves.
Yes, but Marx doesn't suggest that capitalism can just turn into socialism, it has to be overthrown in a worker's revolution.
Lmao, seriously? "Holds the ideology dearly"? That's literally idealism, the material interests of the Chinese bourgeoisie have already swept away any real commitment to socialism. Most Chinese porkies are party members, and many high ranking party members are porkies, including Xi himself. Are they just going to voluntarily give up their wealth and power? Are they just going to hand their factories over to the workers? If western porkies and bureaucrats aren't going to give up capitalism, then what makes you think Chinese ones will?
Dude socialism is when the government does stuff.
They absolutely due. There is no legal barrier separating party members from the bourgeoisie, and the two already overlap quite a bit. The people who run the party are all either porkies or bureaucrats, hardly a revolutionary class with an interest in restoring socialism.
Yeah, a bourgeois state that defends bourgeois interests. Nazi Germany also claimed to be socialist, and the state retained absolute and unilateral power to expropriate property. By your logic this made the Third Reich a socialist state.
Mention a country that does better than China.
Could any "China is socialist" user's answer the following question for me? Which scenario is more likely?
That's entirely beside the point. China doing a good job of governing its people doesn't make it socialist.
People who claim China is "socialist" are morons, or revisionist like Ismail. I've posted the truth about China in and no one can debunk me. It's just that ML sucks.
okay since nobody is pointing out just how fucking idiotic and batshit insane this post is I will
do you know what that would mean? Do you have any idea how photosynthesis works? If a significant amount of sunlight is blocked by particles in the atmosphere it's just gonna lead to massive extinction of plant life, which would lead to even more excess CO2 in the air, (because you know, PHOTOSYNTHESIS). And so even if the vulcanic erruptions would cause a temporary cooling (which I doubt, but let's just go along with it), the globe would be even hotter after these "particles" disappear.
Early Soviet Russia did exactly this "allow capitalism within the socialist state then stop it" thing.
You can argue it wasn't socialist either or whatever, but it is disingenuous to not make that clear if you believe it, when discussing China.
This does happen when a warrior caste takes over the state but not the economy, like the Mamluks during the Mamluk Sultanate or the Janissaries during periods of the Ottoman Empire…you could maybe even expand this to certain periods within the Late West Roman Empire.
To be fair, the period you are mentioning (New Economic Policy) lasted maybe 7 years while the Chinese version is going to last about 70 years (until Robo Xi Jinping activates socialism on January 1st 2050) as depicted here
For the last fucking time, the NEP and Dengism are not even remotely comparable. The NEP was in place for four years. Four, compared to Dengism's forty four. None of the NEP men ever accumulated anywhere near as much wealth as guys like Jack Ma, none of them ever entered the higher echelons of the party, and none of the members of the Soviet government were bourgeois. Meanwhile in China, there are billionaires sitting in the party congress, Xi himself has a net worth in the hundreds of millions. There is absolutely no comparison between the USSR in 1928 when the NEP was abolished and modern China.
Except in those cases you just had the replacement of one feudal ruling class with another. These warriors did not represent a separate class from the feudal lords who came beforehand.
Yeah I'm not saying that they are exactly equivalent, but I am saying that they both fall under the broad criticism that is being made here towards socialism with Chinese characteristics.
What if the Communist Party of China does pull it off and prove you wrong?
You categorically said that "the idea […] that a socialist state can rule over a capitalist economy, goes against both Marxism and common sense". Yet it does not go against what actually happened. Your criticism also applies to the NEP, therefore it is proven wrong by the NEP being abolished.
Ash cloud reduces world temperatures and halts global warming. it would also remove one of the biggest emission source that has also shown little to no repentance on the matter. End of America would also end capitalism and end a large amount of wars around the world. So what there is not to like. Yellowstone 2020!
this isnt an argument at all. its literally a leading line to call for others to provide examples when you dont even qualify china being success
it isnt full communism or even partially socialism, its totally dystopian social democracy with authoritarian communist vanguard elements
by that measure it isnt a success
its a bit of both and thats why optimistic leftists will go to bat for it. neither does the authoritarian government nor the suppression of worker protests indicate it is one or the other. it is likely a bit of both, moreso the second but could become the former at any time, which is why their praxis is poor and revisionist
to be fair, most MLs and pretty much msot of this board probably do not know what dengism really is.
what if you applied analysis to the situation without idealism and took it for what it is? would you then say china will be your saviors and pull a miracle off by flirting with these unregulated markets?
lenin ended the NEP and killed or reeducated in labor camps the NEPmen. it didnt end well. it was a mistake and historical consequentialism and "stagism" is probably idealist and not dialectical. anyways, did you not read their response…?
they arent comparable unless you make assumptions about the current power of the CCP. you cant make assumptions about it, you can only deal in the observable capital these chinese businessmen have. dengism is very different in more ways than one and if you actually confronted some the of differences you might have a better time arguing the chinese are indeed still following the socialist experiment. i for one can admit the world is in constant flux, and dedication to developing socialism is easy to abandon for capitalist markets. the more difficult and slow project is to end the NEP quickly, to develop without capitalist markets and try to push forward against them. we cant assume the future, but we can infer that precedent isnt on chinas side.
I don't see it. They weren't feudal lords. They depended on tributes and plunder and so on.
I would say that the only case I can think of where the ownership of the means of production and the ruling caste diverge are certain warrior castes in history. Their political survive depends on their violence, not on their property (not that property and violence aren't related). The janissaries or the ancient roman soldiers essentially controlled certain rulers within the respective empires and disposed of those they didn't like.
If we take warriors castes and translate it into modern day society, the equivalent would be an army ruling the nation. The nations that come to my mind of being ruled by their military are Thailand and (pre-Erdogan) Turkey. But in Thailand, the Army actually owns the means of production. So Turkey is one country I can think of where the premise was actually met. Perhaps you could include other military dictatorships here as well.
So is China also a society like this? Remember that the military in China is highly political. Is China a country where the military, or in this case, the party+military rules but the bourgeoisie owns? Perhaps: Part of the bourgeoisie have little to no power and even get killed by the state. However, other parts of the bourgeoisie are party members and high-ranking ones at that.
The hope that these Dengists have is that the power of the party over the bourgeoisie is so strong that the private economy is essentially being ruled by the public economy a la "the commandeering heights of the economy". It is a major difference to capitalist countries that the entire banking system is publicly owned (inb4 "socialism is when the gubment does things" - a public banking system is more than the government doing things, it's the absolute lifeforce of any economic activity in capitalism).
The criticism people like you then have is that the bourgeoisie and the party are one and the same.
I think another point of contention is what is meant when we say "China is socialist": Obviously, because Robo Xi Jinping promises to activate socialism on 01.01.2050, it cannot be currently socialist. It is a (state) capitalist economy. But what proponents of China argue is that it is a socialist oriented nation, similarly to how the USSR didn't have a communist economy (because communism was to be reached, see Khrushchev's famous quote about communism in XY years), but was still a communist nation because their GOAL was communism.
In most of these China discussions, one side argues about the current economic system, the other side argues about the long-term political goals. I do think that it is credible that China wants to implement socialism. I do also think that suspicion is warranted because their NEP will last 70 years. I also think that there are strong elements within the CPC that want this NEP to last forever or even want unabashed neoliberalism. But at the same time, I do believe that many CPC members genuinely believe in their "socialism with Chinese characteristics" stuff, the same way Gorby also genuinely believed that he could save socialism by market reforms.
I also already explained why the NEP could be abolished the way it was, and why Chinese capitalism can't be abolished in the same way. The NEP men in 1928 were extremely weak, the bourgeoisie hadn't had the time to recover from the revolution, make inroads into the state, or accumulate wealth and power. If the NEP had been in place for longer, they absolutely would have done so. So no, the fact that the NEP was scrapped doesn't prove me wrong, because it was a short term situation in which the bourgeoisie hadn't been given adequate time to re-establish itself. The reason why the owners of the means of production always form the ruling class is because they command the resources to influence the state more than any other group, but if they are simply emerging from nothing then they will need time to accumulate those resources. The NEP men weren't able to do that, the Chinese bourgeoisie were.
I'm not at all analysing the situation.
I'm taking the statement "the idea […] that a socialist state can rule over a capitalist economy, goes against both Marxism and common sense" to its logical conclusion: either Marxism and common sense are wrong, or the post-NEP Soviet Union was not a socialist state. This is irrespective of modern China.
That's what the CPC is supposed to do, eventually. Will they? Idk. "No" if I had to guess. But Lenin proves it can happen.
Uh I think you quoted the wrong person there.
If you're going to be that anal about it then I'll qualify my statement. The owners of the means of production always form the ruling class if and when they accumulate the necessary resources to do so, which they always do in the long term. Maybe they can be controlled and eventually done away with in the short term as they were with the NEP, but China's policies are clearly not short term.
the USSR during the NEP was not socialist by definition because the means of production wasnt owned by the proletarian or its representative, the democratic dictatorship. if your argument is that china is somehow past its NEP-like phase, stop comparing them.
like i said, strip away your assumptions and idealism and you end up asking the same question any reasonable marxist should,
so we are on the same page. lets not follow up the chinese problem ourselves and advocate what they do. lets not promote it as good praxis until it can be proven, truly shown to end with socialism like the USSR and so many others did reach.
maybe the relation between posts was confusing for you. i was replying to you not getting a statement they made. i agree with the NEP and dengism being very different from each other. it agrees with what history i know of the NEP and dengism.
when did this happen?
sorry, sorry, i meant to say stalin. stalin ended it after lenin died. my bad.
Your mistake here is in thinking that the ruling class necessarily needs to be involved directly in the administration of the state. Military dictatorships for example are generally not governed directly by the bourgeoisie, but they still maintain bourgeois institutions like private property, markets, wage labour etc and thus act in the ultimate interests of the bourgeoisie. By that same token, a warrior elite like you described would still maintain the institutions of feudal society and act as protectors of the ruling class against those they oppress. In that sense the state remains a feudal state, and the aristocracy remains the ruling class because the state protects their interests.
Isn't this group in China the communist party itself? It controls, through the state, far more of the capital than any private capitalist does.
Of the 25 largest Chinese companies, 24 are state-owned and one is partly controlled by its trade union which is indirectly subordinated to the party.
I agree that the number of wealthy capitalists is a danger, but their small membership in the party plays no part in this, and if they were to buy influence it would be through corruption, not direct influence over the economy which they don't have all that much in comparison to the communist party.
Perhaps their influence will grow further, but perhaps the party will crack down on them before that. I don't think that some people having accumulated this much capital prove the project of socialism in China is entirely lost yet - or in other words if the government were to swiftly end the threat of individual billionaires and multimillionaires today, I believe it would be successful. I don't say "abolish capitalism" because that would be a longer process that cannot be done swiftly from where China is today, but according to Ian Goodrum (twitter.com
I said "post-NEP". My argument is that the USSR having transitioned from NEP non-socialism to socialism without another revolution, proves that it is possible. Not that it proves that China can do it today, because the situations are indeed different, but it refutes the argument that if the economy is ever capitalist the state is lost to capitalism automatically as well.
Guys, meet comrade Miller, a chairman of STATE-OWNED gazprom!
now this is shitposting
Yes but the party itself is compromised, and even if it weren't you'd have to consider that the Chinese bourgeoisie as a class still wields tremendous wealth.
It's not just a question of raw numbers. The CPC, like any party following the ML model, is not a democracy. What really matters is the degree to which the leadership is compromised, either by the actual presence of the bourgeoisie in the upper echelons of the party, or by indirect influence through personal relationships, lobbying, etc. Now, I will admit that I don't know enough about Chinese politics to outline the specific ways in which the Chinese bourgeoisie influences the Chinese state, since I'm sure they are entirely different from how this is done in the West. However what I do know is that if we entertain the idea that a class can own the means of production without being hegemonic in the long term, we'd be forced to rework our entire understanding of Marxism. In other words its Occam's Razor, the likelihood of China being a run of the mill capitalist state seems to me to be far higher than it being some bizarre historical aberration.
Again, they don't need direct influence over the state in order to be the ruling class. Most German industrialists didn't directly command the Nazi party, and yet they still had tremendous influence over the Nazi state, which protected their interests. Not to accuse China of being fascist, but comparing it to a fascist state is actually a good illustration of my point, since both fascism and modern China are non-liberal forms of capitalism. Most of what you're saying about China is true of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the state wielded absolute power and the ability to expropriate private property at the stroke of a pen, most of the people actually governing the state weren't porkies themselves, and most porkies didn't wield direct control over the government. However none of this made these states less capitalist or less bourgeois.
Except that's completely ignoring the imperative role dialectics plays in changing the mode of production. According to histmat, the driving force behind the transition from capitalism to socialism is the workers, because they are the ones whose interests are opposed to capitalism, they are the ones with the proper motive and reason to overthrow it. What motive do the leaders of the CPC have to abolish capitalism? Even the ones that aren't porkies themselves still benefit greatly from the status quo, so what reason would they have to change it? The only way you could entertain any hope that this would happen is if you throw dialectics out the window.
Capitalism was part of Nazi ideology, that's a key difference. Hitler rose to power being amicable to the business class. Comparing to China, the party didn't depend on being accepted by the capitalist class, and there is this party control in each business that is actively exercised (or idk maybe Ian Goodrum is fake news), and if the capitalists in fact do have influence, how well have they succeeded in pushing for liberalisation, particularly under Xi's term?
For that matter, in the hypothetical scenario where the until-then-pro-capitalism Nazi party leadership suddenly wanted to take control of all industry, and there was little opposition within the party, they could succeed.
That's a good point, but first I want to make the case that they have no reason not to abolish it either. Indeed, as you say, what matters is to which degree the leadership is compromised, through personal relationships and such as well. One selfish motive that is not adequate as an answer is: to eliminate capitalists as a threat to the party's rule. There is clear motive for the capitalist class to support less party control in private enterprise, but that would weaken the party so there's a reason for the party leadership to see the existing capitalism as a threat.
Now, to answer, mostly with questions. Formally, the Communist Party of China is democratic, so the motive is that workers will elect people who represent their interests. Is your point that democracy does not existe at this scale and any communist party will invariably be lost to a leadership that has no interest in changing the status quo, or that this happened to China? And, if this happened only to China, where do you think it went wrong?
Even if they had not allowed a reintroduction of capitalism, what motive would they have to work towards full communism instead of just administering some form of lower-stage communism forever?
what the ozone layer doesn't care about is imaginary lines on a fucking map you absolute fucking autist. why not carry your logic and just say "asia" in general? why not the entire fucking northern hemisphere? stopping at a singular country is an entirely arbitrary demarcation. if all 26 provinces of china split into its own country, this "single largest CO2 producer" meme ceases to be true, and yet it wouldn't make a single physical difference or remove a single molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere.
the revolution that indeed happened was the terror visited on the NEPmen if they attempted to continue their roles after they were useful
dude im a dialectical materialist not some foghorn leghorn jibber jabber
you even say
the goddamn chinese communist party got too much surplus value and important political moves tied up in chinese business and while they may control all the land in china and have a tight grip on the CEOs throats that relationship is a liability that can eventually result in an imbalance of power just like it always has and always will
ill believe in the rare exception when i see it happen. until then we have to do our own thing and fight a good fight of our own in whatever countries we belong to, not looking for china to save our dumb asses
otherwise would have agreed with you on this retardation that are photovoltaïc pannel on earth.
stuff is only usefull and sensible for satelittes.
instead of using simple thermal convection, but that would have been more efficient AND cheaper, while requiring less dependency on IP.
also china is not your waifu, and it's still shit, and chinaboos are no different than weebs in that regard.