(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
indigi posted:what’s all this about then!? (seriously I haven’t been following) A big chinese real estate company cant pay off its lenders (most of which are western companies in the first place) and will soon go into default. China watchers think this will have disastrous consequences for the chinese market, but in reality its way more likely that western bag holders will get hit worse. I fully expect that Xi's just gonna let it happen because it sends two clear messages, dont commoditize housing and stop dealing with gweilo vulture capitalist.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:45 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 10:13 |
|
Ardennes posted:The US could intercept Chinese shipping without it being a nuclear war no i'm pretty sure if the US navy starts acting as privateers the chinese would consider that war
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:46 |
|
The US would have to start spending hundreds of billions of dollars into the merchant marines if it ever thinks about forcefully decoupling from chinese shipping.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:47 |
|
Judakel posted:hehehehehehe
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:49 |
|
Rutibex posted:no i'm pretty sure if the US navy starts acting as privateers the chinese would consider that war "started"? https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-middle-east-iran-iran-nuclear-global-trade-826ea21eb3d9f9fed3681b0ae6b4aa3a The US navy literally just goes around hijacking Iranian civilian oil tankers and then sells their cargo back in port
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:56 |
|
its going to be hilarious if blackrock ends up insolvent because of this poo poo
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:56 |
|
Spergin Morlock posted:its going to be hilarious if blackrock ends up insolvent because of this poo poo
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:57 |
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:A big chinese real estate company cant pay off its lenders (most of which are western companies in the first place) and will soon go into default. lol nice Rutibex posted:no i'm pretty sure if the US navy starts acting as privateers the chinese would consider that war yeah but not a nuclear war
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:03 |
|
Spergin Morlock posted:its going to be hilarious if blackrock ends up insolvent because of this poo poo Blackrock is the entity that the federal reserve has been using to directly funnel money into the markets.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:26 |
|
China would need a lot more than just Navy upgrades to be able to guarantee a shipment they send arrives at Rotterdam harbor, and if they wanted to do the world police pirate poo poo against the US they'd need a shitton of naval bases. But then, if they wanted to gently caress with US supply lines they'd just have to not send the goods from Guangzhou. Now, if the US was about to coup Lula II and a few PLA divisions arrived on the coast, that would be incredible funny and cause an incredible, hopefully non nuclear, meltdown, but on the other hand it seems to me that a large part of the value proposition of China to RoW is that they won't(and really can't) land divisions to renegotiate minor points in their lending agreements.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:30 |
|
stephenthinkpad posted:I can believe it. The Soviet share the same religious roof as the West. And while Marxism is not religion, it's still very ideological, OTOH the Chinese is not ideological. Things the Chinese do are more pragmatic. There is no clear ideological guideline on things Beijing does (to give a couple examples off my head, for example, future plans in SCS, or what's happening now to the Chinese domestic property market.) China is more foreign to the US/Australia elites than Soviet. China is still a Marxist country, so even if there is massive amounts of marketization that ideological difference still matters in a subtle but meaningful way. Western states are bourgeois dictatorships where capitalists can get away with doing practically anything and are never prosecuted for it, but China remains a country directed by the CCP. Western capitalists are seriously afraid of China because they're one of the only states powerful enough and willing to prosecute the criminal bourgeois, and if China ends up leading the international order instead of Western powers that opens up the door for more countries to return to state-led societies instead of being force liberalized by Western instituions.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:31 |
|
Spergin Morlock posted:its going to be hilarious if blackrock ends up insolvent because of this poo poo Blackrock is literally too diversified to fail. That's why market worshippers hate index funds. It's too sound of a business model.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 19:35 |
|
I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. European 'social democracy' and the nordic models were the go-to way to 'save' capitalism until they became evident failures and on top of that the US waged an ideological global war against unions, protectionism and state power through the world bank, imf loans, and shock doctrine et al imposed on any country too weak to resist US meddling. China is an alternative to nordic models dressed in a red banner. and individual capitalists are scared. But the system of capital isn't scared. The soviets had a much more serious attempt at a post capitalist organization of resources and human relations to work edit: A lot of stuff China does, like keeping its billionaires' money locked inside the country, expropriating it when they gently caress up, is cool and good but also what like roman leadership did. It's just good statecraft when making money isn't the sole source of social power (like it is in the USA), doesn't matter about marxist ideology. The rich are the state's biggest threat in good times and often in bad times as well. I still think China is focused on growth driven by expropriating surplus from workers mass producing goods aka capitalism. Antonymous has issued a correction as of 20:19 on Sep 20, 2021 |
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:11 |
|
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:16 |
|
Those ukrainian soldiers wearing the thin blue line flag shows that American Police are literally the new nazis, what fascists around the globe aspire to. Swasticas are outdated. should have posed with a guy with punisher tats
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:21 |
|
https://twitter.com/china_takes/status/1439921497422839808
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:30 |
|
gee I wonder why Japan would be remiss in pondering deeds like the holocaust
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:32 |
|
clearly they just never think about it so it would be very unfair to deny japans first girlboss her rightful power just because of an inscrutable orientalism
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:34 |
|
Antonymous posted:I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. A dictatorship of the bourgeois is more than just the ability of private interests to own capital and get rich, it's the minority rule of society by the bourgeois class. You'd be really hard pressed to argue definitively that Chinese society is ruled by its capitalists rather than the communist party. Even if you want to point out capitalist membership in the Party, they do not dictate party policy nor are they exceptions to the law as would be the case in a true dictatorship. All actually existing socialist states are reduced to a point where they must allow or tolerate significant levels of marketization - yet there is no question about the rule of their communist parties. Vietnam is even more marketized than China, but is still not a bourgeois dictatorship.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:35 |
|
baffler is fun to read about managerialism but lol CCP https://thebaffler.com/salvos/rebel-is-right-wang quote:
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/china/scholars/t15/wangchaohua.htm posted:Tiananmen, 15 Years On: Where Are Some of the “Most Wanted” Participants Today? hrmery. mawarannahr has issued a correction as of 21:05 on Sep 20, 2021 |
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:39 |
|
Xi Jinping embraces the spirit of 1970, but it's more like the spirit of 1984
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:43 |
|
I love big poohbear
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:51 |
|
Antonymous posted:I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. some dumbasss leftists actually believe this!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ONdyZZ3OtE&t=1s
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 20:58 |
|
oh question for ardennes what movies are the russians watching lately did their whole market crash or just the one for hollywood movies
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:04 |
|
it sounds like the communists overperformed in the elections in Russia today, and secured about 1/3 of the seats
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:27 |
|
Antonymous posted:I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. good news, people have done real analysis, you should try reading it sometime instead of making poo poo up
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:33 |
|
They watch The Black Widow the ballet dancing Russian Spetznas
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:37 |
|
runaway pancake posted:good news, people have done real analysis, you should try reading it sometime instead of making poo poo up if you think about it China is actually neoliberal
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:52 |
|
Antonymous posted:I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. its been like 20+ years since the 90s, turns out deng wasn't loving joking and xi is DEFINITELY not joking, the millions of CPC members who have worked tirelessly for decades weren't joking, and the point of opening up and allowing and encouraging markets was actually, like deng said from the beginning, to develop productive forces to allow for material conditions necessary for a moderately prosperous society. the PMCs still knew how to run the factories, and were thus necessary, ask lenin about it, as well as there needed to be incentive to work, grow, and make truly world-class poo poo in the first place hence allowing billionaires. i would also personally argue that billionaires are a necessary misdirection under american hedgemony to make hostile liberal capitalist foreign powers believe you are going down a path to liberalization that you simply aren't; i don't like them either but they seem to have worked well in that regard. the fact that most if not all of them are in the CPC, there's more of them per capita, and they have a much lower multiplier of median/average net worth than in the us/west has demonstrated this and has been what brought me to be at peace with the idea. the first major initiative xi put the CPC on as president was anti-corruption. you know that poo poo worked hilariously well because the foreign policy blob has been big mad about it since it started, as what it was doing in practice was removing thoroughly corrupt officials, punishing ones that did more minor oopsies, and fixing bureaucratic entanglements that kept people from seeking redress. this punted all the cia assets overnight. the methods were largely just creating multiple levels of oversight and taking accusations of corruption seriously and investigating suspicious activity and following up on tips and complaints. the reason this was done first is, in order to make good on the promise that the development of productive forces would lead to a better, or "moderately prosperous" life for the entire country, and in order to be able to complete the next order of business, poverty alleviation, the thing that xi cares about the most and worked his entire career to be in a position to lead the cpc in allocating the resources and literal millions of party members that would need to be deputized to carry out the program. it simply couldn't be done if it was corrupt bureaucrats all the way down that kept pocketing money and resources meant to pull people out of poverty, either via direct welfare or infrastructure. extensive tracking and databases and oversight needed to be put in place to ensure every last person was out of absolute poverty, which was absolutely necessary because many of the problems that had to be overcome in the last mile was finding out who had their hands in the cookie jar that was keeping the people still in absolute poverty from their entitlements. im going on but the point is here--does any of this sound like poo poo that a bourgeois dictatorship would do? head to bottom, the CPC, especially since the party has organized around and uplifted Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping Thought, simply does not take orders from billionaires. they actively root out corruption and kickback schemes. the second a river or lake somewhere gets hosed up they send out lawyers on ziplines and solve the problem and prosecute whomever is doing it instead of making it illegal for companies to NOT gently caress everything up until it becomes a superfund site at which point some token settlement is doled out like OTHER CERTAIN western countries. china is not a country, and the cpc is not a ruling body, that puts money and capital before its citizens. it's not perfect, it has to make a lot of compromises to live in the historical materialist context it does under a us hegemony, and there are times where an eagerness for prosperity gets in the way of sound decision making a little too long. however if you actually look at their actions and how they have been developing, they aren't loving joking with the socialism by 2050; it's practically a new country every decade as they work to resolve the biggest contradictions they are able to at any given time. in conclusion, i do not understand why so many western leftists insist on seeing china as this static place that seeks to be wealthy in capital for its own sake. while this is the MO of western powers, there is nothing in china's actions or history under CPC rule that indicate they are putting bourgeois concerns above proletariat.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 21:54 |
|
hot witch divorcee posted:ask lenin about it, as well as there needed to be incentive to work, grow, and make truly world-class poo poo in the first place hence allowing billionaires. I agree with your overall point but wasn’t the USSR putting out world class poo poo without producing billionaires? like, they won the space race, their city planning seemed to be top notch, military hardware forget about it. in terms of providing for its population it was unmatched until China. their economy was world class - never competing with the US 1:1 of course but they were in the top ten. I do think allowing billionaires was a useful and understandable tactic but I also don’t think it was absolutely necessary given the counterexample that shared a border
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:12 |
|
Antonymous posted:US elite dont' care if you're ideologically western and christian there's just two or three levels, Guess it didn’t work out for Ireland
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:38 |
|
breaking news on the gorbachev freedom indicator https://mobile.twitter.com/PizzaHutPak/status/1439513194444230656
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:38 |
|
I wouldn't call the soviet economy world class. They had a "working" planned economy that's about it.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:39 |
|
stephenthinkpad posted:I wouldn't call the soviet economy world class. They had a "working" planned economy that's about it. Besides the USA what economy was working better post WWII? Japan I guess? edit: and west germany, france... and if being #2 overall and among the top five globally isn't world class then idk what world class means Antonymous has issued a correction as of 22:43 on Sep 20, 2021 |
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:41 |
|
indigi posted:I agree with your overall point but wasn’t the USSR putting out world class poo poo without producing billionaires? like, they won the space race, their city planning seemed to be top notch, military hardware forget about it. in terms of providing for its population it was unmatched until China. their economy was world class - never competing with the US 1:1 of course but they were in the top ten. eh, there are two major things that i personally think tie into this and also why china is still chugging today while the ussr collapsed. first, i wouldn't say the ussr didn't have problems with this. my reading group just got to the chapter in blackshirts and reds that went over this in detail; there often wasn't really an incentive to work hard as you could just get another job elsewhere and there were no rewards contingent on performance, and the central planners had all kinds of perverse incentives to only do the bare minimum output with the lowest quality possible, with a similar version happening in farming because the quality of what you produced didn't matter, only the quantity. before the ussr was flailing around with this, deng and the cpc had already figured out that if they let farmers keep any surplus over what they were required to produce to sell or do what they will, they had much more productive farms with much higher quality output. second, billionaires are a really drat good misdirection and i'm not convinced, nor do i think the cpc is convinced, they would have been able to pull off making the hegemony rely on them to do manufacturing for pretty much the whole world without making the west believe that they were on the path to liberalization. i would also argue that that's why there's a good number of western leftists who didn't (like parenti) and still haven't (like the guy that mouthed off itt) really caught on to the keyfabe and the rather open secret, i suppose assuming that rhetoric and policy outlines that are even officially translated into english are window dressing like they are in bourgeois liberal democracy and not, you know, 100% serious.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:42 |
|
hot witch divorcee posted:its been like 20+ years since the 90s, turns out deng wasn't loving joking and xi is DEFINITELY not joking, the millions of CPC members who have worked tirelessly for decades weren't joking, and the point of opening up and allowing and encouraging markets was actually, like deng said from the beginning, to develop productive forces to allow for material conditions necessary for a moderately prosperous society. the PMCs still knew how to run the factories, and were thus necessary, ask lenin about it, as well as there needed to be incentive to work, grow, and make truly world-class poo poo in the first place hence allowing billionaires. i would also personally argue that billionaires are a necessary misdirection under american hedgemony to make hostile liberal capitalist foreign powers believe you are going down a path to liberalization that you simply aren't; i don't like them either but they seem to have worked well in that regard. the fact that most if not all of them are in the CPC, there's more of them per capita, and they have a much lower multiplier of median/average net worth than in the us/west has demonstrated this and has been what brought me to be at peace with the idea. It's because the CIA and other fieveyes thugs have infiltrated the western left and have been subverting it for decades now.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:46 |
|
Antonymous posted:I think if you did a real analysis China is a bourgeois dictatorship, more of a deformed capitalist state than a deformed worker's state. pener answered this already but to elaborate more on this, it isn't at all like the nordic model or even keynesianism at its prime because, as hilarious as it may seem, if there's one thing the CPC cannot be criticized for is soundness like, the CPC has a theoretical coherence on what is trying to do and achieve. When Xi Jianping says that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is what they are doing right now, they mean it that socialist economic relations are being pursued to their best capability under the present material circumstances China is in. This is why the leftmost members of the CPC criticize but do not repudiate Deng, or the rightmost defend Mao and Zhou: they understand that each tenure has dealt with different circumstances and situations, and this recognition and owning of their history is a massive differential from the CPC in comparison to the soviet union. And all of that is deeply, deeply ideological. If they didn't care about ideology, the Chinese would never go the great lengths they had to perform good statecraft (like you said) when dealing with foreign capital. Scandinavia has nowhere near the same structures and mechanisms of economic control China has. The strategy that the CPC has adopted, from Deng's tenure, has been to subvert globalization by putting China into the core of capitalist development, making the country indispensable to its function, allowing them to sequester international capital and acquire trading advantages (such as technology) in order to accelerate socialism once a certain critical mass was reached. There's a lot to criticize there in execution and approach, but this critical mass appears to have been achieved during Xi's presidency, which has been utilizing it towards the major historical goals of the party (such as the "moderate prosperity in all respects" line) with success. Misery elimination and poverty reduction has been independently verified by very Western sources in deliberate effort and unseen scale, which is something that wouldn't happen if this government has been simply pro-capital what I am getting at is that even if there's a lot to be disagreed in terms of approach or to criticize about, they are Marxists. They have historical direction and purpose, and for good or bad the way the CPC governs shows that
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 22:54 |
|
hot witch divorcee posted:eh, there are two major things that i personally think tie into this and also why china is still chugging today while the ussr collapsed. first, i wouldn't say the ussr didn't have problems with this. my reading group just got to the chapter in blackshirts and reds that went over this in detail; there often wasn't really an incentive to work hard as you could just get another job elsewhere and there were no rewards contingent on performance, and the central planners had all kinds of perverse incentives to only do the bare minimum output with the lowest quality possible, with a similar version happening in farming because the quality of what you produced didn't matter, only the quantity. before the ussr was flailing around with this, deng and the cpc had already figured out that if they let farmers keep any surplus over what they were required to produce to sell or do what they will, they had much more productive farms with much higher quality output. What I find easier to believe is that China nearly liberalized, and then course-corrected before things got too out of hand. That they truly were on the path to ruin but that the factions within the CPC that had probably resisted Dengism all along, eventually won out. As for the actual motivations of Xi I think they are important, but ultimately he is going to be constrained by material circumstances and his own self-interest, which appear to be fortuitously directing him in more or less a solid direction for China (along with the rest of the CPC). The actual motivations of Deng Xiaoping 40+ years on I could not give less of a gently caress about and can't really ever know anyway. I do think that what you've outlined will be the official party line to the extent there is one, and the one that history records. (Well, what it records until enough humans are thoroughly Marxist enough to know that such an individualistic account of things could never tell the full truth.)
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 23:01 |
|
I specifically said that china's billionaires are not what makes china a bourgeois state. I think it the same token you cannot argue that Xi bringing back SOEs, or SOE's existence, as a point toward china not being capitalist. Typically about 37% of GDP in the USA is government spending, in 2020, 47% of the USA's GDP was government spending. Half our economy was government rather than market or capitalist enterprise - it doesn't mean poo poo about social organization. You would have to fabricate a very mangled definition of capitalism (or maybe a very libertarian-esque one) to have it not apply to the Chinese economy, but have it apply in spades to the USA. The state enforces private property, private property's goal is to amass more wealth, there is a working class and an owning class, there is a lassie faire labor market, there is mass production of goods for sale on the market. I know that land ownership is restricted in Chinese cities, but that doesn't make a factual difference on how real estate is privately held for profit (rent, valuation, etc) - it's a huge problem just like in the USA. The chinese state is a much more active participant in regulating and moderating its economy and I think its interests are in continuing to develop a capitalism run by technocrats rather than profit seekers. I don't think they're going to abolish any of what they've built by 2050 unless there's a huge shakeup where the rate of profit falls to nothing and there's no surplus for the state to expropriate and spread around. What I learned in my heterodox econ class long ago (lol) was that china has probably the best developed capitalist state because they have much more ability to intervene than say the USA has with its federal institutions and the federal reserve. If you believe the lessons of the great depression were that you need strong state controls on capitalism in order to keep capitalism from 'overheating' and therefor help capitalism survive itself, well China has that capability and the USA and most of the rest of the world either gave it up or never tried it. I don't imagine China reaching a point where they're going to smash this nice growth (aka surplus value extracting, in this case) engine they've built when it's top of the line.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 23:03 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 10:13 |
|
CaptainACAB posted:It's because the CIA and other fieveyes thugs have infiltrated the western left and have been subverting it for decades now. yeah but im still going to mouth off about it because it sure took me a long time to find out the truth (that china and the cpc are super loving based) because any time any western leftist brought up china it was like "well they're just state capitalism/capitalism with red flags" and well yeah working in tech and knowing things like how lovely foxconn is (but not really knowing much about the difference between a taiwan or hong kong company and a mainland one) and how lovely 996 schedules are it was really easy to uncritically swallow. always been a big dprk fan though so i at least recognized that china loving around with market influence allowed the dprk to avoid it. but then i met pro-china marxist-leninists and was completely gobsmacked by how much has been kept from me. like my god even in the aforementioned reading group, since it's with mixed company leftists, i have to be very upfront that "it was the 90s and there are some outdated things about china in here" and then couch everything i say and go into detail about some of china's solutions to problems that we've seen since then (or in some cases, even before then under deng) and then still hope those same people still show up next week.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 23:03 |