(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
seriously though there are other china threads which appear to be full of expats living there who seem to really hate living in china and also chinese people what's up with that
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
that was probably the most racist game i ever played, but i was 14 and didn't notice the other faction was just arabs with suicide bombers and chemical weapons, the chinese would get money by deploying guys with laptops who would hack money from the internet
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:seriously though there are other china threads which appear to be full of expats living there who seem to really hate living in china and also chinese people virgin white stalinist lf vet vs. chad actual chinese person
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Yandat posted:that was probably the most racist game i ever played, but i was 14 and didn't notice
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:Yes. It means he’s willing to violate the taboo on prosecuting former standing committee members, which means he can never become a former standing committee member (or president or whatever) himself. "China allows for a capitalist class because it understands that it's not nearly as rich as the rest of the world and you need a lot of resources and wealth to support socialism and all the trials that that implies, but Chinese capitalists are still tightly restrained by the longer-term goals of the party" isn't 12th-dimensional chess so much as maybe two-dimensional. It assumes that it's not a more direct "China allows for a capitalist class because people love being fuckin' rich, hell yea", but the level of "chicanery" isn't particularly deep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:seriously though there are other china threads which appear to be full of expats living there who seem to really hate living in china and also chinese people i was pleasantly surprised to find the gbs china thread mostly full of sadbrain expats instead of just virulent racism
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Yandat posted:that was probably the most racist game i ever played, but i was 14 and didn't notice While true, Generals still owned hard once i got over it not being red alert or tiberian poo poo. Nothing like SCUDsing the poo poo out of Are Troops i wonder if its on steam Fuligin has issued a correction as of 04:57 on Apr 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
it might be janky getting it to work on modern systems
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:virgin white stalinist lf vet vs. chad actual chinese person  virgin statue of liberty vs. chad motherland swordsmaiden
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I miss the old tiberium war game now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
this is your reminder to play red alert 3 right now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yMy7JuGpJM
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Yandat posted:id much rather this thread be between people who agree with eachother about china, with no other critical perspective. also more racism This thread should be about upholding Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Dengist-Xiist views; in other words, this thread is not for social democrats or democracy enthusiasts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
i used to be a democrat, but now i only do it socially
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:modern chinese despotism The Asiatic Mode of Despotism
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Wouldn't reading and then actually understanding any of Marx's writing make the average chinese citizen mad as hell that their leadership has pretty much done the opposite and they're living in a lovely state-capitalist dictatorship with the worst of both worlds and out of control class divisions and zero democracy in the workplace? yes, which is why the government cracks down on literal marxist reading groups
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
You do have to appreciate the irony of the CCP repressing Maoists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
it's one of few CCP policies we can all agree on
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
weird how every major university has a school of marxism yet people pretend the only study of marx, engels, lenin and mao is happening in the two or three tiny reading groups trot organizations report on
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:xth-dimensional chess, that old chestnut. rudatron, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Yandat posted:the chinese would get money by deploying guys with laptops who would hack money from the internet
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:China can remain socialist the same way conservative America can remain Christian. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
Assuming a clear distinction between politcs and economics is a liberal conceit. The relationships governing the means of production forms the base of every society. All politics sits atop of. That's basic marxism. Just because said relationships governing the MoP in china also take the form of political bribery and corruption, through relationships with state officials, instead of pure commoditized exchange (as is more the case in the west), doesn't mean that the capitalist system as a whole is subordinated to the prerogatives of the ruling party. Ultimately, the first duty of any society is to reproduce itself, and that means economic production. That means there is a dependency of the power of the party, on capital. Since china has introduced sophistacted modern capitalism, and used that as the foundation upon which modern china is built, any transition away from that would be equivalent to removing the foundation of a house, after it has already been built - effectively another revolution, and one which cannot but be oppossed to the current power structure, including the party. The arrest of this or that ceo, in not itself proof of the parties anti capitalist bonafides. When the the party itself is heavily intertwined in capital, and the econonic system as a whole continues to remain firmly a market economy, the loss of one patsy or another is meaningless. The system remains one based around private property, and it endures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
prolix
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Assuming a clear distinction between politcs and economics is a liberal conceit. The relationships governing the means of production forms the base of every society. All politics sits atop of. That's basic marxism. the dominant mode of production isn't capitalist. public ownership is still the norm for the commanding heights of the economy, and the entire rural economy is still collectively owned. you're operating on false premises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the dominant mode of production isn't capitalist. public ownership is still the norm for the commanding heights of the economy, and the entire rural economy is still collectively owned. you're operating on false premises. The size of the state sector is irrelevant to the mode of production. You're actually advancing a very conservative definition here. The Nordic countries have large state sectors and sovereign wealth funds too, (Norway's is about on par with China's), but most Marxists don't mistake this for socialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
China has few private banks though so checkmate China is more socialist
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The size of the state sector is irrelevant to the mode of production. You're actually advancing a very conservative definition here. The Nordic countries have large state sectors and sovereign wealth funds too, (Norway's is about on par with China's), but most Marxists don't mistake this for socialism. Social democracy is good, but only at gunpoint, and without the democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The size of the state sector is irrelevant to the mode of production. You're actually advancing a very conservative definition here. The Nordic countries have large state sectors and sovereign wealth funds too, (Norway's is about on par with China's), but most Marxists don't mistake this for socialism. public ownership isn't the sole criterion for socialism but it's a useful shorthand when compared with most capitalist economies. that norway comparison is disingenuous though. you should read someone other than matt bruenig and again, the rural agrarian economy (still half of the whole economy in china) is collectively owned. most people aren't aware of this or if they are, conveniently ignore it. like you have people are also unaware of the system of workers' congresses in all state-owned firms, most mixed-ownership firms and a substantial chunk of the private and even foreign-owned ones. these are separate organs from the party committees and a key component of democratic enterprise management
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:public ownership isn't the sole criterion for socialism but it's a useful shorthand when compared with most capitalist economies. that norway comparison is disingenuous though. you should read someone other than matt bruenig It's not disingenuous at all. It gets to the heart of the matter and you don't want to engage with it because it blows what you're saying out of the water. If SEOs are your measure Nordic countries have just as good of a claim to be socialist as China does. And if you want to pile up other criteria, go ahead, none of it will change the fact that China operates under a market system just like Norway and Denmark. If you want "market socialism" then fine, but what you're saying isn't any more radical than what Matt Bruenig is, beyond that he doesn't pretend to be a communist. Also some of this is just inaccurate. Agriculture makes up about 25% of employment and <10% of GDP. It's nowhere near half the economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not disingenuous at all. It gets to the heart of the matter and you don't want to engage with it because it blows what you're saying out of the water. If SEOs are your measure Nordic countries have just as good of a claim to be socialist as China does. And if you want to pile up other criteria, go ahead, none of it will change the fact that China operates under a market system just like Norway and Denmark. If you want "market socialism" then fine, but what you're saying isn't any more radical than what Matt Bruenig is, beyond that he doesn't pretend to be a communist. seos aren't my measure, and the existence of markets doesn't make an economy capitalist. does the marketization of certain industries in cuba suddenly make their economy capitalist? you can take "agrarian" out of the earlier quote if you want. the rural population still amounts to nearly half the total and rural employment is also about half. it's not nothing. you're insistent that markets of any kind=capitalism, the same kind of error as state ownership=socialism. the fact you say "these other things don't matter" when they do matter very much tells me how serious you actually are
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:none of it will change the fact that China operates under a market system just like Norway and Denmark. If you want "market socialism" then fine, I don't think anyone's arguing that China doesn't have a sort of Market Socialism in a sense, the argument is that it's soon to be the largest economy in the world and might be developing towards a goal of socialism, depending on how you feel about the CCP. I think everything rests on the intentions of a few dozen people and doing a high wire act towards communism is dangerous as hell. Xi can have the best of intentions, but if his plane crashes who is around to push a socialist vision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
that's the good thing about distributed power and democracy, you can't cut off the head. Is there some serious material basis behind China's development other than the ideals of some powerful guys?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
i'm actually on HomeEx's side now. none of us have a single iota of influence on China so really all it boils down to is "do i want to believe there's a chance for socialism" and the answer to that is yes. so hopefully china is working towards communism
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
yeah it's important here to realize that none of your opinions matter
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
For the record, I had a Marxist economics professor who has written a ton about this very subject. He has also been to China and both of the Koreas, has contacts in the labor movement, and even given talks in Cuba about how the Chinese economic system isn't worth emulating His newest article on China is here. https://economicfront.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/whats-driving-trade-tensions-between-the-us-and-china/amp/ "For its part, the Chinese government is trying to use its large state-owned enterprises, control over finance, investment restrictions on foreign investment, licensing powers, government procurement policies, and trade restrictions to build its own strong companies. These are reasonable development policies, ones very similar to those used by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. It is short-sided for progressives in the US to criticize the use of such policies. In fact, we should be advocating the development of similar state capacities in the US in order to rebuild and revitalize the US economy. That doesn’t mean we should uncritically embrace the Chinese position. The reason is that the Chinese government is using these policies to promote highly exploitative Chinese companies that are themselves increasingly export oriented and globalizing. In other words, the Chinese state seeks only a rebalancing of power and wealth for the benefit of its own elites, not a progressive restructuring of its own or the global economy."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
I think the one thing that swayed me to the CCP's position was in 2013-2014 when every smart boy on NPR and the whole economic sell was that China's economy was on the verge of some collapse. It never happened. The power of centralized economic control of banks was not taken into account with the prognosticators of Economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
On that note, it kind of bugs me to hear advocates of various state socialisms use pithy arguments about standard of living increases under Stalin and Mao, as though we should take similar arguments about capitalism's standard of living increases by Stephen Pinker et al as similar gospel. Every single post-WWII economy that boomed did so with some combination of capitalist and state enterprise. The different gradations, geopolitical impacts, and ideological variations thereof do not a "socialist state" make. The one opportunity for global socialist revolution came and went with the failure of the USSR's revolution to spread to Western Europe, and that's made clear by the eagerness of Western states and businessmen (Kochs included) to do business with Stalin Trotsky may have been a bit of a demagogic nutjob, but he was right about the necessity for international revolution. It's too bad that he would prove to be better than the newspaper sellers who would try to follow his example
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
it would have been cool as heck if Germany had had a successful revolution
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:For the record, I had a Marxist economics professor who has written a ton about this very subject. He has also been to China and both of the Koreas, has contacts in the labor movement, and even given talks in Cuba about how the Chinese economic system isn't worth emulating this is super obvious though. that's the whole point of opening-up: a controlled allowance of foreign investment while preserving and building up china's domestic industry. i'd argue it's also a major reason the great firewall exists: baidu, tencent and didi wouldn't have been able to grow if their american counterparts had been able to muscle into the chinese market first the second paragraph cites an entire issue of a journal, which i'll read, but it also cites an article on chinese income inequality. this is a fair point but it ignores the fact the government has made inequality a major target of future policy. the major tenet of xi jinping thought is that the principal contradiction in china has changed to that of unequal development. inequality is an issue the government knows about, and if the poverty alleviation campaign is successful that's next on the list. meanwhile inequality in the us continues to worsen and no government has seemed to give a single poo poo about it since 1980
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Yandat posted:it would have been cool as heck if Germany had had a successful revolution well one half did 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 01:08
|
|