Atrocious Joe posted:

https://twitter.com/_ericblanc/status/1545422445552738313?s=20&t=VZRSHzDEHp5kMsEi6kVNLQ

Kshama please crush this dork

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

I don't know what DotP (Dick of the Pussy, thanks mawarannahr; also no) is. Capitalism is both a mode of production and an ideology. I am talking about the mode of production. A large part of the Chinese economy participates in the capitalist mode of production. This is whether you count State enterprises as State Capitalism or not. I never claimed that China was capital-C Capitalist the way you describe. I wasn't aware of that term or its definition. Where does it come from?

Michael Hudson classifies China as a Mixed Economy. There is Capitalism. There is State-owned enterprise. Most importantly, the State controls the money supply and the lending as a bulwark against financialization. There is a lot more to it, but this is generally what he calls industrial capitalism leading to socialism. By staying focused on producing values, preventing a monied, rentier class from gaining power, development in a society will (or, at least, can) proceed on a sort of historical dialectic path towards socialism.

Your idea of the turn to socialism is similar of what most Classical Economists believed. They all talked about socialism as a sort of inevitable thing that was coming, although they disagreed on exactly what that meant or how it would happen. But they all agreed that Rent, or financialization, would be the death of it. That's what the Free Market is. That's the thing that the Market should be Free from: RENT. The neoclassicists turned it completely on its head.

You're talking about the CCP managing capitalism, and if you're managing capitalism to prevent financialization, you're not ideologically capitalist? Ok. I'm not saying otherwise.

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

I don't know what DotP (Dick of the Pussy, thanks mawarannahr; also no) is. Capitalism is both a mode of production and an ideology. I am talking about the mode of production. A large part of the Chinese economy participates in the capitalist mode of production. This is whether you count State enterprises as State Capitalism or not. I never claimed that China was capital-C Capitalist the way you describe. I wasn't aware of that term or its definition. Where does it come from?

Michael Hudson classifies China as a Mixed Economy. There is Capitalism. There is State-owned enterprise. Most importantly, the State controls the money supply and the lending as a bulwark against financialization. There is a lot more to it, but this is generally what he calls industrial capitalism leading to socialism. By staying focused on producing values, preventing a monied, rentier class from gaining power, development in a society will (or, at least, can) proceed on a sort of historical dialectic path towards socialism.

Your idea of the turn to socialism is similar of what most Classical Economists believed. They all talked about socialism as a sort of inevitable thing that was coming, although they disagreed on exactly what that meant or how it would happen. But they all agreed that Rent, or financialization, would be the death of it. That's what the Free Market is. That's the thing that the Market should be Free from: RENT. The neoclassicists turned it completely on its head.

You're talking about the CCP managing capitalism, and if you're managing capitalism to prevent financialization, you're not ideologically capitalist? Ok. I'm not saying otherwise.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I think the thing that confuses people - including myself - about China the most, is not being able to understand how Dengism ever worked. Like I get the principle of it, but I don't understand how China managed to do it without the state falling under the control of the capitalist class. Especially when you consider that capitalist actors chief among them the US were working hard to make sure that happened and yet it somehow... just didn't. It's especially especially perplexing since the USSR did in some ways a very similar thing right around the same time and immediately self-owned in spectacular fashion. So I think there is a tendency to suppose that China probably is capitalist (in the sense that the CPC is captured by the capitalist class) and they're just really good at hiding it.

wynott dunn posted:

which one falls off the cliff

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Tankbuster posted:

What is the source of this image?

Tankbuster posted:

Is it any good?

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm referring to mode of production as well.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I think the thing that confuses people - including myself - about China the most, is not being able to understand how Dengism ever worked. Like I get the principle of it, but I don't understand how China managed to do it without the state falling under the control of the capitalist class. Especially when you consider that capitalist actors chief among them the US were working hard to make sure that happened and yet it somehow... just didn't. It's especially especially perplexing since the USSR did in some ways a very similar thing right around the same time and immediately self-owned in spectacular fashion. So I think there is a tendency to suppose that China probably is capitalist (in the sense that the CPC is captured by the capitalist class) and they're just really good at hiding it.

I'd be interested to hear opinions on if China was capitalist at some point in the recent past. I don't actually know. Would it be accurate to say that the principal aspect of the economy in maybe the 80s and 90s, was capitalist? It seems like it would have had to be at some point, but perhaps not - I don't know.

quote:

Deng: Bourgeois Liberalization Means Taking the Capitalist Road

"At the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee the Party decided on the policy of opening to the outside world and at the same time demanded a curb on bourgeois liberalization. These two things are related. Unless we curb bourgeois liberalization, we cannot put our open policy into effect. Our modernization drive and the open policy must exclude bourgeois liberalization. For the past few years there has been liberal thinking not only in the society at large but also inside the Party. If this trend were allowed to spread, it would undermine our cause. In short, our goal is to create a stable political environment; in an environment of political unrest, it would be impossible for us to proceed with socialist construction or to accomplish anything. Our major task is to build up the country, and less important things should be subordinated to it. Even if there is a good reason for having them, the major task must take precedence."

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

okay folks I get it, I'll stop typing out a widely-used and unremarkable acronym for a pretty basic element of marxism, here in the marxism thread

Cuttlefush posted:

what even is marxism>??

Cuttlefush posted:

what even is marxism>??

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

china might just be too big to be fully colonized by any western power. and western racism might play a role which makes getting chinese capitalists on board with a U.S. project to overthrow the government more difficult. chinese are often framed by western corporate media as the chinese version of a jewish conspiracy pulling the strings on american politicians, and are responsible for every problem that happens. chinese women are objectified while chinese men are portrayed as asexual. everything the chinese do is disgusting and savage or part of some long-term scheme made by goat-bearded mandarins that is at someone else's expense. they're noticeably not-us and jackie chan would always be typecast as "the cop from hong kong" until he got tired of it and wanted to play different roles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcbS9-Ijg5w

like tom clancy's late ouvre is full of this outright racism, and he represents the thinking of a whole generation of american fourth reich blondies. once the russians have "converted" because they're basically white and ok without the marxist cabal in charge, then we can gangbang the chinese women together once the goddamned chinese men who are basically klingons and monsters are put in their place. that kind of structural, systemic demonization for decades makes it difficult to really normalize relations with china and then flip the elites to join the empire like what happened in russia -- it's perceived as treason in the U.S.

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

Maybe you can clear this up by explaining to me what you think the capitalist mode of production is.

Hefty Leftist posted:

economic control was ceded to bourgeois elements in society but not political control. the bourgeoisie weren't allowed to organise as a political class: they were correctly suppressed by the socialist state. deng and the CCP combined that with understanding capital's need for surplus value and exploited it through investment to develop the productive forces while still retaining control. it worked and both western bourgeois governments and western ''marxists' (trots) don't understand because they're incredibly sinophobic and anti-communist

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

I don't know what DotP (Dick of the Pussy, thanks mawarannahr; also no) is. Capitalism is both a mode of production and an ideology. I am talking about the mode of production. A large part of the Chinese economy participates in the capitalist mode of production. This is whether you count State enterprises as State Capitalism or not. I never claimed that China was capital-C Capitalist the way you describe. I wasn't aware of that term or its definition. Where does it come from?

Michael Hudson classifies China as a Mixed Economy. There is Capitalism. There is State-owned enterprise. Most importantly, the State controls the money supply and the lending as a bulwark against financialization. There is a lot more to it, but this is generally what he calls industrial capitalism leading to socialism. By staying focused on producing values, preventing a monied, rentier class from gaining power, development in a society will (or, at least, can) proceed on a sort of historical dialectic path towards socialism.

Your idea of the turn to socialism is similar of what most Classical Economists believed. They all talked about socialism as a sort of inevitable thing that was coming, although they disagreed on exactly what that meant or how it would happen. But they all agreed that Rent, or financialization, would be the death of it. That's what the Free Market is. That's the thing that the Market should be Free from: RENT. The neoclassicists turned it completely on its head.

You're talking about the CCP managing capitalism, and if you're managing capitalism to prevent financialization, you're not ideologically capitalist? Ok. I'm not saying otherwise.

tokin opposition posted:

i would simply do communism but good

tokin opposition posted:

i would simply do communism but good

Tankbuster posted:

What is the source of this image?

Pomeroy posted:

That aspect probably doesn't hurt, but apart from racist ideology, purely in capitalist terms, Chinese capitalists weren't in the position of having to overthrow the state to become capitalists, as their aspiring counterparts were in the USSR, and many of them are probably conscious of the fact that, absent the party, Americans wouldn't be dealing with them as competitors, they'd be doing everything possible to reduce them to dependent compradors, and they have the advantage of having seen what that meant in Russia.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Iron Sky

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

i think it's that third-world nationalism and the CPC included the national bourgeoisie into their program because they were also interested in kicking out the imperialists. i think stalin warned that there's a danger of "bourgeois nationalism" subverting the revolution from within. but the bourgeoisie in latin america by contrast were more solidly comprador and were still under the delusion that they had already achieved their independence, but a lot of them identify as white more than really peruvian or bolivian and don't view their own compatriots as the same as them. the latin american left speaks the language of having revolutions to achieve real sovereignty.

Pomeroy posted:

helping American capitalists to destroy and subjugate the country to then serve as collaborators is basically out of the question from the point of view of their own economic interests

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

china might just be too big to be fully colonized by any western power. and western racism might play a role which makes getting chinese capitalists on board with a U.S. project to overthrow the government more difficult. chinese are often framed by western corporate media as the chinese version of a jewish conspiracy pulling the strings on american politicians, and are responsible for every problem that happens. chinese women are objectified while chinese men are portrayed as asexual. everything the chinese do is disgusting and savage or part of some long-term scheme made by goat-bearded mandarins that is at someone else's expense. they're noticeably not-us and jackie chan would always be typecast as "the cop from hong kong" until he got tired of it and wanted to play different roles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcbS9-Ijg5w

like tom clancy's late ouvre is full of this outright racism, and he represents the thinking of a whole generation of american fourth reich blondies. once the russians have "converted" because they're basically white and ok without the marxist cabal in charge, then we can gangbang the chinese women together once the goddamned chinese men who are basically klingons and monsters are put in their place. that kind of structural, systemic demonization for decades makes it difficult to really normalize relations with china and then flip the elites to join the empire like what happened in russia -- it's perceived as treason in the U.S.

Zodium posted:

that western imperialism was unable and maybe even unwilling to seriously attempt co-opting Chinese capitalists in part because racism blinded them makes a lot of sense to me. as a westerner who, some decades ago, went to China with just the sort of racism you describe here, I can at least anecdotally say that because of it, I was nearly socially blind to Chinese people, society and culture in a way that simply wasn't the case for my time with Russians. I'm used to being quite socially adept, but my powerful racism legitimately made it difficult for me to function in China outside a strictly business capacity. which, at the time, I blamed on Chinese people being inscrutable goat-bearded mandarins, noticeably not-me, as you put it, rather than blaming myself or doing any introspection; Russians, well, now they were basically me, basically easy to interact with, just a little weird.