China’s Leaders Confront an Unlikely Foe: Ardent Young Communists

So how long before we see the resurgence of a Chinese left that is actually capable of threatening CCP revisionism? And how long before supporting them is a bannable offense on Zig Forums?

Attached: 251.PNG (960x960, 521.15K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I was just listening to this:

I like right-wingers:
Nixon, Heath…

De Gaulle.

No, not De Gaulle. I’m loath
to file him in that pigeonhole.

But Germany’s another tale.

We’ve more than once led the right wing
forward while text-book cadres swung
back into goose-step, home at last.
How your most rigid theorist
revises as he goes along!

Now you’re referring to Wang Ming,
Chiang, Chang Kuo-tao and Li Li-san.

I spoke generally.
The line we take now is a paradox.
Among the followers of Marx the extreme left,
the doctrinaire,
tend to be fascist.

And the far right?

True Marxism is called that by
the extreme left.
Occasionally the true left calls
a spade a spade and tells the left it’s right.

Wtf? Was that a real dialogue that they had?

the dialectics are in motion

It's from Nixon in China, but seems relevant.

The thread I posted on this subject on leftypol literally got reported for “CIA imperialism” and the mod straight up told whoever did it to fuck off lol.

Every day, tankies surpass my expectations of how badly they deserve the bullet. How long till we see trannypol advocating the arrest of returning YPG volunteers?

How is this "unlikely?" The dengists have been arresting actual moaists since the Red Guards in the sixties.

Yeah seriously. The students sang the Internationale in Tienanmen Square before they were massacred.

lol, quality

t Zig Forums

To be fair, I did see a lot of people, including plenty of MLs, siding with the students.

I'm surprised there even are Marxists on Chinese universities. Didn't they stop teaching Marx in their curricula entirely?

Xi though if Marxism was tough everyone would assume Marx was talking about Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in 13236789007968541732687989 years. He was wrong.

if anyone is surprised by this, they either don't understand the Marxist conception of communism or modern China

Attached: deshou ne.png (679x406, 106.18K)

This is true. The people supporting the government were only like two retards, it's not as bad as one would've thought.

I would imagine so, since the students themselves are actual MLs. I bet that even nazbols don't side with the dengists.

I'm not sure why they would teach about Marx in the first place.
Looking to Marx as a legitimate source for valid economic theory is like handing someone a copy of the Ramesseum medical papyri if they want to know about medicine.

It was Literally just one Butthurt Dengoid Probz Ismail Basically everyone else agrees that China is a Capitalist power

t. Probably unironically calls Hoppe and Friedman books "basic Economics"

Attached: 12.png (478x523, 14.01K)

Marx heavily influenced Keynes who’s economic theory was the basis of the entirety of western capitalism for decades. Even if you believe the meme narrative abou the USSR being a total failure, Marx’s influence is everywhere.

As a westener I’ve given up on trying to understand the 1324546789685756345241 Demential Socdem Chess that is Modern China.

I'm pretty sure if you study medicine they teach you about Hippocrates et al.


Marx's work is still valid and his economic model is actually more comprehensive than what most economists are using today. Now, there are very few people who have actually read Marx and understood that model, but that's a separate issue.

Keynes never read or even attempted to understand Marx's theories. The claim that Keynesian fiscal stimulus has "Marxist" roots is lazy McCarthyite propaganda from Neoclassicals. At the same time, ironically, Keynesians were heralding their theories as capitalist society's last defense against Marxism.

Keynes was aggressively and dismissively critical of Marx

noticed some comments from Michael Roberts on his blog:
As I said previously, there were a host of sessions on Brazil, Southern Africa and China, most of which I was unable to attend. On China, what I did seem to notice was that nearly all presenters accepted that China was ‘capitalist’ in just the same way as the US or at least as Japan or Korea, if less advanced. And yet they all recognised that the state played a massive role in the economy compared to others – so is there a difference between state capitalism and capitalism?

comments section:
Does China produce ”çapitalistically” as a goal? Is profit the main driver of investment and production in China or is the preservation of the regime? Is the aim of the Chinese Communist one-party autocratic state to exploit the workforce and people for the market realisation of profits and for a class of capitalists? I am not convinced that it is the modus operandi. If it is just capitalist why has it (mostly) avoided the global crisis even as just one state? These are questions to debate in my view and not yet decided.

tbh i think if Roberts studies the question he will come to the conclusion that China's economy is indeed dominated by capitalist 'laws of motion' which is why they pumped huge amounts of credit into the economy to keep it from imploding in 2008. this credit, however, probably contributed to China's own property bubble which has reached massive proportions.

I was under the impression that Keynes based his theories on Marx's critiques and that his model was specifically designed to address the flaws Marx pointed out to make capitalism more viable.