|
Pirate Radar posted:The comparison will weirdly hold when Taiwan and California both solve the questions by drifting (further) out to sea when the next Big One hits.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:And then combine to form the glorious superstate Taiwafornia. ah, monterey park
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Califormosa
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
stone cold posted:ah, monterey park https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cjqLRqngYU
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
I’ve been reading a lot of news about China lately wrt the president for life thing, and as an outsider I’ve read a few phrases repeated over and over again and have no context for what it means. The first phrase I keep seeing is how Xi Jinping has “enshrined himself into the communist party’s constitution” and “elevated to the level of Chairman Mao.” So what exactly does this mean, to be enshrined in the constitution? It’s never really explained in the (western) news articles and just stated as a matter of fact. Was the constitution amended (in the American sense) with a line that says “Xi Jingping is and will always be a/the leader of our party” or something else more subtle? Second, the news usually makes a point to say something like “the communist party’s constitution” rather than “China’s constitution.” Again being an American this distinction doesn’t make sense to me because over here we have one constitution, the constitution, and each party has their own platform of issues what they want/plan to do. But in the end the ultimate rule of law is within the constitution and not the party’s platform. In China are these two things the same things? Thanks in advance. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I’ve been reading a lot of news about China lately wrt the president for life thing, and as an outsider I’ve read a few phrases repeated over and over again and have no context for what it means. 1. they're referring to the inclusion of "xi jinping thought on socialism with chinese characteristics for a new era" into the preamble of the prc constitution, in keeping with the theoretical line that goes from marxism-leninism to mao zedong thought to deng xiaoping theory to "the important thought of the three represents" or three represents. basically the guiding ideologies of each major leader of china since 1949. all those previous titles are already in the constitution and the latest change also included the scientific outlook on development, which was hu jintao's centerpiece theory for his tenure. because xi's name is in the theory, people then use that to push the headlines you refer to. conveniently left out of that breathless terror is as originally proposed xi's ideology was just "the thought on socialism with chinese characteristics for a new era" and only included xi's name after the central committee voted to add it. 2. they are two separate entities and the cpc constitution is amended more often than the prc one. the cpc constitution governs the party and the prc constitution governs the state. as such the latter constitution deals with the actual powers of government, which the former does not do. sometimes changes in one find their way to the other, usually in the form of the aforementioned amendments to the preamble. these aren't the current versions, but you can compare them anyway cpc constitution circa 2013 prc constitution circa 2004 R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I’ve been reading a lot of news about China lately wrt the president for life thing, and as an outsider I’ve read a few phrases repeated over and over again and have no context for what it means. Q1: For the most important dudes in PRC history, they specifically get quotes into the constitution. There is a different between the party's opinion on socialism with chinese characteristics, and THIS GUY'S opinion on socialism with chinese characteristics. Q2: De facto rule of the chinese government is done through the party. People in government positions are not loyal to the idea of a chinese government itself, but loyal to the communist party of China. Most of the time these two ideas are basically the same, but when push comes to shove whatever the party leaders say goes, not a non-party government official (however few in power they may be.) Whenever a chinese official says they need to obey the rule of law, it means following the CCP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Q1: For the most important dudes in PRC history, they specifically get quotes into the constitution. There is a different between the party's opinion on socialism with chinese characteristics, and THIS GUY'S opinion on socialism with chinese characteristics. no one is directly quoted in the constitution GoutPatrol posted:Q2: De facto rule of the chinese government is done through the party. People in government positions are not loyal to the idea of a chinese government itself, but loyal to the communist party of China. Most of the time these two ideas are basically the same, but when push comes to shove whatever the party leaders say goes, not a non-party government official (however few in power they may be.) Whenever a chinese official says they need to obey the rule of law, it [/i]means[/i] following the laws of the CCP. this is also wrong but less obviously so. the party has primary responsibility for political decision-making and the government has primary responsibility for implementation. there's no doubt the cpc is the ruling party, and government positions often have a party position counterpart, but they are distinct in terms of accountability and administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:no one is directly quoted in the constitution It is not like "this person said in this speech" but it is about having a leader's ideology "canonized" and part of further CCP ideals. Unless you want to get pedantic about the differences between a charter and a constitution. quote:this is also wrong but less obviously so. the party has primary responsibility for political decision-making and the government has primary responsibility for implementation. there's no doubt the cpc is the ruling party, and government positions often have a party position counterpart, but they are distinct in terms of accountability and administration. When the true decision makers of the government are also party members I don't really see a difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I'm sure a bunch of state department employees and other Serious White Liberals only think good thoughts of the Chinese people and just want them to be liberal, compassionate imperialists like themselves What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:What? Everyone in this thread is a nickle-and-dimer for the USofA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
A great premise for a film, an entire online community realizes that all of them are paid state actors with different agendas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I'm sure a bunch of state department employees and other Serious White Liberals only think good thoughts of the Chinese people and just want them to be liberal, compassionate imperialists like themselves *opens thread* *pokes head into thread* hey guys plz remember I am actually an alt-right racist sexpat self-loathing alcoholic who every day learns to hate himself more for diluting his pure aryan blood by having mixed-race children thanks, I'll show myself out *slowly backs head out, hits head on the side of the thread* *closes thread*
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:It is not like "this person said in this speech" but it is about having a leader's ideology "canonized" and part of further CCP ideals. Unless you want to get pedantic about the differences between a charter and a constitution. yes, but it's not like those theories are developed in a vacuum without input from other party members. for instance, wang huning has played a key role in the formulation of three represents, the scientific outlook on development and xi jinping thought. his name isn't in the constitution but he had a great deal of input, as did other party members whose focus is ideological development. somebody is writing stuff for qiushi journal and study times, after all. quote:When the true decision makers of the government are also party members I don't really see a difference. the government is accessible in a way the party isn't, since it's the actual administrator of state services. you wouldn't go to your local party branch to get your visa renewed or to collect pension funds, for example. cue some joke about corruption
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the PSB is completely subservient to the Party, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
The Great Autismo! posted:*opens thread* Admitting that you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
The Great Autismo! posted:*opens thread* Love you too bro, stay strong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
I also think part of the reason Xi made his move was geopolitical, Xi is much more supportive of an aggressive stance versus the US in particular and erasing term limits allows him policy continuity. Basically, he needs more time to complete his "great project" of making China a superpower that can stand toe to toe with the US. Also, I wouldn't be surprised the evolving Chinese-Russian alliance might be an influencing factor. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Speaking of government corruption, The taxman for one of the plant which I work for came knocking the other day. Apparently our accountant and the tax department approved our filing and is stuck in Beijing. But the tax filing is incorrect and this taxman is “going to pull us a big favor, retrieve the record from Beijing and make us pay an adjustment instead of a tax penalty” Even though the filing had been approved by the accountant AND red star rubber stamped by the local tax department. The argument by the tax department is that it was a lower inexperienced staff member who approved it so NOT THEIR FAULT. Nope the tax commissioner will not ask for bribes any more because of xijinping crackdowns but the new trend is to have public offices go to Hong Kong or Macau settle restaurant bill payments. Will we bribe them? Hell loving no. If I had my way I report those fuckers for the Hong kongIndependent commission against corruption and call the party discipline guys
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
They government already drags book sellers and stock traders from Hong Kong. Might as well drag the real riff raff
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
caberham posted:They government already drags book sellers and stock traders from Hong Kong. Might as well drag the real riff raff If you ever have to flee Hong Kong know that you have friends abroad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Banana Canada posted:Califormosa 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Thanks guys for the info.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
caberham posted:Speaking of government corruption, please do not get both your legs broken falling down the stairs, caberham try to make it just be one
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
I've seen this argument in a few different places where really shady non-academic sources (i.e. Business Insider, Forbes, and journalists looking for a best seller) are used to claim that China is some kind of Capitalist (or most recently HYPERCAPITALIST) state, but it stinks of horseshit propaganda to me. Do any goons have any actually good arguments (both sides are bad) or is this just one of those things that is going to get drowned out in the propaganda pissing matches?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:I'm pretty sure the PSB is completely subservient to the Party, so... which is more dominant wasn't the question, the question was about whether they're functionally separate. which they are
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
The word capitalist doesn’t mean very much, and is hugely tied up in cold war propaganda. Having said that though, like half of china’s GDP comes from state owned industry today in 2018 and xi’s government is actively opposed to privatizing any of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
It's called "State Capitalism", it's upgraded version of free market Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
Yes, and a definition of capitalism that includes the USA circa 1998, the USSR circa 1968 (state-capitalist degenerate workers state), and China circa 2018 is basically meaningless Here’s an article on Singapore btw https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitalist-is-singapore-really/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Capitalism is a system where free labor, mass production, wages, markets and profit are the dominant forms of economic activity and it's not only a great definition it applies to those 3 societies. The fact that in the last 100 or so years virtually every society in the world adopted a capitalist economic model is extraordinary not meaningless. hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
IMHO if you define capitalism as a free market system with minimal state intervention then China is not that. If you define capitalism as a system encouraging competition and the pursuit of capital in order to gain more capital, then China is very much capitalist. Add the state as an overseer and you get state capitalism. If you define capitalism further as a societal model, one in which the economic form of capitalism (pursuit of capital) has seeped into the social consciousness, into ways of life and thinking about your neighbors and ways you identify yourself (something akin to Debord's Spectacle) then I could totally see applying this label to China if not defining it as "hyper capitalist." The ideas of "face" and "capital" have been intertwined for a while now but the increased access to goods and increased buying power (as well as the general "wild west" business environment that led to so many Chinese nouveau rich) has really let this relationship fly over the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
Amergin posted:IMHO if you define capitalism as a free market system with minimal state intervention then China is not that. It raises the question of what country is capitalist, by that definition. You could probably say a good chunk of Europe isn't, depending how you frame it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
So basically, all of the competing propaganda has entermeshed into an indistinguishable morass of horseshit and having any distinct ideas about things in the public sphere is a waste of time because the horseshit is drowning out any meaningful public conversation? Internet Panopticon when? Ban all bots now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:So basically, all of the competing propaganda has entermeshed into an indistinguishable morass of horseshit and having any distinct ideas about things in the public sphere is a waste of time because the horseshit is drowning out any meaningful public conversation? IMO the word capitalism just shouldn’t be used at all because capital is an integral part of all economic production by definition, including in a socialist system where it is owned publicly. It’s impossible to have an economy without capital in the first place There are definitely coherent analyses of China’s political economy. This guy’s blog is a good start https://andrewbatson.com
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
So my feeling that they are swimming so deep in their own liquidized poo poo that they are drowning in it continues to be the right path.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Love you too bro, stay strong. hope you’re well man
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
The Great Autismo! posted:hope you’re well man Shut the HECK up nerd
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Cyberpunkey Monkey posted:I've seen this argument in a few different places where really shady non-academic sources (i.e. Business Insider, Forbes, and journalists looking for a best seller) are used to claim that China is some kind of Capitalist (or most recently HYPERCAPITALIST) state, but it stinks of horseshit propaganda to me. Do any goons have any actually good arguments (both sides are bad) or is this just one of those things that is going to get drowned out in the propaganda pissing matches? The correct answer is probably China is probably what genuine state capitalism looks like, a system that has liberalized to a degree but nevertheless, the economy is still vastly dominated by SOE (State Owned Enterprises). Btw, the Anglosphere press seems to be particularly butthurt by China right now since China predictably enough is aggressively pursuing its foreign policy once it became an economic superpower. (It is really hard to read any article in the English-language press nowadays when the subject is country that contests the Washington consensus.) icantfindaname posted:IMO the word capitalism just shouldn’t be used at all because capital is an integral part of all economic production by definition, including in a socialist system where it is owned publicly. It’s impossible to have an economy without capital in the first place It is probably why economies should be defined in relation to each other rather than some rigid (and often largely made up) definition that really has nothing to do with anything. Personally, I resist calling the Soviets "state capitalists" because their model expressed rejected basics like floating prices, inflation and really nearly all private enterprise...those are pretty basic components of any vaguely capitalist economy. In contrast, modern day China has those things except that private enterprise is usually in the shadow of the state itself that still has overwhelming weight in the economy. Modern-day Russia in many ways similar, perhaps slightly less direct state influence, but in many ways, they are pretty comparable. Once you go over to Western Europe, the degree of state intervention is obviously quite a bit less although usually European governments are more interventionist as far as social goods go. Basically, I would say the Soviet Union is classic Leninist state socialist, contemporary China/Russia are both state capitalists, and European governments are usually mixed market capitalists. Arguably, the US is still arguably mixed market as well although we seem to be trending in a direction where the state itself of relatively nominal influence. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Mar 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
As someone who works in small/medium manufacturing sector here’s my HOT TAKE: It’s 530am and I’m a little hung over and grumpy because I am staying at some el cheapo hotel chain with paper thin walls and obnoxious neighbors on the only non smoking floor banging and screaming down the paper thin hallway walls when it was 230am on a weekday. loving hell i can’t take much alcohol but it’s good whiskey from Japan and it’s a good group talking about work and having hot pot and I’m not dealing with hookers and not racism and not chauvinism and what not. Ok ok about state capitalism. Just because China back in the day you can BUY OFF ANYONE WITH THE RIGHT PRICE INCLUDING BUYING OFF GOVERNMENTS doesn’t make it a hyper capitalist place. I suppose people might have misconceptions because it’s more about the hectic pace of wheeling and dealing with authorities, trade rules, regulatory conditions, competitors and changing market conditions. China is not some inherently unique magical oriental business market playground. It’s just a big developing country that has a big poverty gap and regional differences/regional markets. No you can’t just bribe any American official but who the gently caress is dumb enough to do that when you have a bunch of golfing buddies or lobbying firm to change the legislation or give you a heads up about the future. No, western countries are not “tu quoque you are just as corrupt too but in different ways bad”. Safety and environmental regulations is not a matter of imperialist propaganda and food scares and safety hazards are definitely universal. Just to be a ridiculous reductionist, there is common ground in the business sense of “Am I being taken for a ride and is this bullshit?” “Can I get away with more?” “Can I trust this guy” “poo poo is getting real, what can I do?” “These people are cool, let’s stick around” I am actually desensitized by tubgirl and helldump so I can stomach a lot of horrible places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 23:32
|
|
