/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2660051
Carney's speech about "middle powers" was pretty clearly an exercise at hedging risk, not a fundamental political restructuring. Canada and Europe are still at their core imperialist and atlantist powers, but they're beginning to realize that the US is turning into a source of instability. In this context they become more open to european remilitarization and economic cooperation with China and with non-aligned nations, but they still see the developing world as colonial assets that must be exploited and managed. Make no mistake, even as minor imperial nations get cannibalized by the United States, they will STILL side with the US in wars against oppressed nations and rising powers (China, Russia, etc…). Their stance on Palestine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, etc… None of that has changed.

>>2660051
China have a capitalist economy you know? They may extend their egemony worldwide, but why would they make anything socialist?

>>2660051
>Given that, when can we expect China to implement global socialism?

no because china is pro-sovereignty and anti-military-intervention. the proletariat of various nations must seize power for themselves and begin socialist construction on a national level as described in chapter ii of the manifesto.

>>2660051
>Given that, when can we expect China to implement global socialism?
No.When the world was transitioning from feudalism and serfdom to capitalism, Britain didn't just decide to 'implement global capitalism' one day. They took actions in the right direction like banning the slave trade but couldn't ban slavery in general. Each country had to do that often violently (e.g the American civil war). There is no reason to think China could just decide to 'implement global socialism' one day.

>Trump is about to drive Canada and Europe into China's arms over this greenland shit
no he isn't

the grandstanding is for show

europe will bend the knee and sell greenland to zion don for peanuts and you know it

>>2660135
It was also explicitly anti-communist. I'm not sure what they are complaining about they are getting everything they want. "Blackest reaction", etc.

The fact that almost every socialist nation supported by the USSR collapsed outside of a few exceptions (Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Belarus, Laos) is proof that China was right in the long run to stick to non interventionism. Cuba is going to be overthrown eventually now that Venezuela has been coerced. The Asian communist states are all dependent on China in one way or another (notice how North Korea's economy immediately went into a downturn during Covid bcause a hard lockdown cut off trade with China). Laos relies on financing and trade with China and so does Vietnam which both benefits from Chinese trade and also plays up the possibility of aligning with the West to maximize benefits from all sides. Belarus can fall back upon Russian help but even the Belarusian communists are wary of Russia due to what they see as reactionary trends.

Basically the Chinese argument is this: a socialist nation intervening to "speed up" the victory of socialism in another country is doomed to fail. It is nothing other than the propping up of a tiny political minority which lacks the trust and support of the majority of that nation, and as soon as funding and support is stopped the quick reversion back to capitalism proves that the attempt was built on a shaky foundation. Therefore socialist countries should prioritize their own interests first over interventionism, and simply maintain a holding pattern. Capitalist countries can continue to function after the reigning hegemon dies (ex. the British Empire). Why should socialist nations be any different?

Not a single person on this board can command the support of even 5% of their country. And yet they have the arrogance to demand to be put in charge with foreign military backing. Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't you win your nation to your side first, and then go ask the Chinese for help? That's what Eritrea did.

>>2660361
>China was right in the long run to stick to non interventionism.
Some Boomers who went in Korea would disagree.

>>2660361
>The fact that almost every socialist nation supported by the USSR collapsed outside of a few exceptions (Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Belarus, Laos) is proof that China was right in the long run to stick to non interventionism.

Thats not how proofs work. Thats an example of a random correlation not a proof of causation.

>>2660361
Presumably you believe they spontaneously collapsed on their own through no interference of a certain global hegemon?

>>2660361
no, you see, China actually has to solve all our problems for us. the fact that they aren't doing this and are instead acting in their own self-interests, developing the productive forces by passing through the capitalist mode of production until it has exhausted all its potential, and building up the third world in mutually beneficial ways is proof that they CLEARLY aren't socialist

>Given that, when can we expect China to implement global socialism?
no because a critical mass of nations must carry out successful revolutions first

>>2661518
>developing the productive forces by passing through the capitalist mode of production until it has exhausted all its potential, and building up the third world in mutually beneficial ways is proof that they CLEARLY aren't socialist
so america can be capitalist for 500 more years i guess since capitalism isnt exhausted.

Please answer this, when exactly or at what point is capitalism "naturally exhausted"? is it a technological or economic inflection point? because china has the worlds manufacturing now and solidly post industrial economies like western eruope and the usa are not socialist which certainly implies it will be like 50+ years AT LEAST before china will even try socialism, at which point why do i care? my life will be over before socialism happens

>>2663450
People aren't going to like this but "exhausting capitalism" requires a certain amount of ideological will to do so. I don't think anything that China has done in the past 10-20 years indicates an ideological desire to shift away from state capitalism. Lots of other nations are at this point far closer to losing patience with current economic systems, so if people are expecting the "ticking clock" to do the job then China isn't the place to look at all. People also forget that history has shown us that when capitalism becomes desperate to sustain itself, it turns to fascism, imperialism, and other forms of economically-driven violence. Hitler's promise to the failing Weimar Republic was to use the levers of power to restore German propserity and dignity. Putin's promise to a stagnant capitalist Russia is to use the levers of power to restore Russian prosperity and dignity. Trump's promise to an ailing America is to use the levers of power to restore American prosperity and dignity. There is no reason to believe that China will operate differently, especially since it already possesses what are effectively other vassal states. It is already engaging in capital export to the global south as America did because its (dominant—let's not forget that ethnic rifts run deep in China and they are more than willing to export labor to "each other") population, similar to America's, wants to work less-demanding jobs for more money and consume increasingly more complicated and extravagant products. Their desire to control global trade isn't for the sake of suddenly flipping the Abolish Capitalism switch. It's for the sake of perpetuating the growing demand for Chinese capitalist consumption.

I think people need to consider as well that any time the leadership of a nation is comprised of those that had to fight for scraps there is a latent desire to adjust the levers of power, ever so slightly, in a fashion that biases your continued existence at the controls. Not all the levers are pulled, and they're not pulled all at once; maybe one or two with each generation of leadership. But when enough time goes by, even if the goals of the ruling body remain "recognizable," enough levers have been subtly adjusted that the trajectory of a state's policies are now noticeably, demonstrably different. I think this is the situation China now finds itself in given the time and changes since the Cultural Revolution.

While I don't think socialism / communism as many leftists expect it will happen in our generation, this doesn't mean I think it's impossible. I do think China as a state will not be the ones to implement it for many reasons, though. There are too many aspects both economic and cultural that in my mind would bias it towards fascism given any sort of economic collapse. At least in the current world, I would sooner expect socialism emerging in a well-cared-for population of a social democracy, though given currently all such countries are supported off of third-world labor exploitation I'm not sure how stable that would be either.

>>2660269
>china is pro-sovereignty
<2014: "China treads cautiously after pro-US coup in Ukraine" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/chuk-m05.html
>voiced support for Ukraine’s “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity”—without indicating who China believed had violated it
they do this every time lol

>>2663724
What China wants in Ukraine is for the war to end on a stalemate, meaning that Russia doesn't achieve complete victory and is therefore still reliant on China, while the West don't achieve complete victory either and have to keep their attention in Ukraine in case Russia invades again.

China obviously doesn't have strong ideological geopolitics and is definitly in favor of Realpolitik

>>2663736
While I don't think this is 100% true in every circumstance I do think it's the reason why we're more likely to see socialism emerge in a country where the majority of the population feels "comfortable." There's less reason to personally corrupt the state apparatus to remain in power if a life outside of the halls of power is just as comfortable and meaningful.

>>2663749
To consolidate the comfort. Any malleable social contract will require an active will to keep it as-is. Any internal or external force is capable of taking away said comfort. Inaction in the face of a blatant upending of the current social order is how you get things like the deregulation of industry and the proliferation of the billionaire class in the United States over the course of the past 70-80 years. In that instance people essentially voted to increase their own poverty long-term due to economic shock and the lack of liberals to provide an alternative avenue to maintain comfort. The hope is that in the future people will be capable of recognizing a similar situation and outcome and have the willingness to avoid it.

Any sort of equality or mutual prosperity will come at the ideological or physical cost of someone who wants or has more than mutuality will allow. Those people, especially if they are in a dominant position, will be willing to act on it, requiring everyone else to safeguard against their actions.

>>2663764
>the lack of liberals
The inability of*. Typo.

>>2660135
>atlantist
Least obvious Duginist

Canada is still only beginning to move towards being a neutral power and Europe are still cucks for America as demonstrated by the recent Greenland incident, it will take (my guess) a decade or so for them to decouple from the US to the point where they can act as an independent power to any degree - and that is subject to change if in 3 years a Democrat is elected who attempts to mend relations and return America to status quo neoliberal globalism. Basically, the semi-periphery is still in the oven and not yet ready to be devoured.

>>2663703
I think socialism/communism has to come about in a superpower, unless all the superpowers collapse/lose power, or it will be devoured by the superpower for flouting the world system, as we see with America. Nuclear weapons can save them but I find it unlikely that a cushy social democracy in western Europe or whatever would build a nuclear arsenal.

>>2660361
So the solution to prevent state capitalism from collapsing is just becoming the factory of the world? Damn

>>2664042
>We must seize the means of production
<NOOO WHY ARE YOU LEARNING HOW TO PRODUCE AND MAKE EVERYTHING YOU SHOULD JUST SQUAT IN ABANDONED BUILDINGS AND MAKE WEED
the absolute state of modern socialists lmao

>>2664042
>>2664073
They aren't "seizing the means of production" because the means of production in China neither belong to the people nor remain there (again, they are performing capitalist labor offshoring *right now* in order to ensure cheaper prices for consumers). They are becoming the factory of the world to build capital and are slowly pivoting away from this as their middle and elite classes become less willing to do factory labor. The United States did exactly this from the 40's to the 70's; in the aftermath of WWII the US was essentially the only developed manufacturing economy and made everything for everyone in order to enrich its population. Said population then grew tired of working in factories and increasingly pivoted to service jobs because who wants to risk death and harm in a manufacturing job when an office job pays just as well and you get to sit all day. China is going through this exact economic transformation right now; their interests in the likes of India, SEA and African nations isn't some pure and noble enterprise like people cope and say it is. They're forming beneficial and sometimes exclusive trade relationships that perpetuate state capitalism. Guess who else did this? The United States before and during the Cold War; Japan and South Korea are what they are because the US pumped money into them to turn them into manufacturing hubs for the American consumer market. China is doing essentially everything that the US has already done, they just changed the colors on the posters so that people with fond memories of the Cultural Revolution stay with the program. There are some meaningful differences, such as the willingness to prosecute and remove elites that threaten the stability of the Chinese market, but you aren't socialist or communist just because you're willing to do that.

>>2664034
I don't think this is necessarily true. I think it depends on other geopolitical states at the time. It's doubtful, for instance, that a western-aligned social democracy that develops, knowingly or unknowingly, 70-90% of what someone would look for in a socialist state without calling itself such would be attacked by world powers, especially if it maintains its alliances. Some wars are hard to sell to soldiers and populations, especially on ideological grounds in the modern world where people are more concerned with material well-being. I also think that a true superpower is by nature more biased towards fascism because of its recent history as a superpower (making the myth of the glorious past to return to feel more "real") and the fact that with more resources and global influence comes a greater ability to successfully execute fascism for longer. Fascism would never last long or be truly effective in a small country with limited geopolitical reach, because fascism requires the cannibalization of nearby states. If you'd lose your first wartime venture or are strangled economically on the global stage, fascism essentially dies in the crib.

>>2664725
>Actually modern factories you aren’t really risking death or even serious injury beyond maybe losing a finger or an eye
Sure, but this wasn't the case during the US's historical transition away from manufacturing, which is what I was discussing. Chinese factory conditions also aren't peachy, though in other ways.

>>2664723
>The United States did exactly this from the 40's to the 70's; in the aftermath of WWII the US was essentially the only developed manufacturing economy and made everything for everyone in order to enrich its population. Said population then grew tired of working in factories and increasingly pivoted to service jobs because who wants to risk death and harm in a manufacturing job when an office job pays just as well and you get to sit all day. China is going through this exact economic transformation right now
The difference is that China is doing it in a time where automation exists. And with some of the cheapest electricity, most advanced grids, and the highest power capacity in the world, it would be more economical to just automate manufacturing rather than offshore it. Why would China want to give up its dominance over the world's manufacturing anyway? That's the main advantage it has which no one else does.

>>2665936
I will also note that there has been no sign of offshoring manufacturing in recent years:
"LI LECHENG Minister of Industry and Information Technology 'Over the course of the 14th Five-Year Plan, China's manufacturing value-added is expected to grow by 8 trillion yuan, contributing more than 30 percent of global growth.'"
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-09-09/VHJhbnNjcmlwdDg2MzMy/index.html

The 15th Five Year Plan has also shown no sign that they intend to do so in the future:
"International experience shows that manufacturing's GDP share usually falls in post-industrialization era, but an overly low proportion causes industrial hollowing-out, weakening economic strength and risk resistance. Some countries fell into the "middle-income trap" by neglecting manufacturing, while developed nations that pursued "de-industrialization" now struggle with "re-industrialization."

For China – a developing country of more than 1.4 billion people – manufacturing remains indispensable to its modernization drive and to strengthening the real economy.
To achieve this goal, the recommendations outline several key measures, including advancing industrial foundation reengineering and research into major technologies and equipment; promoting the implementation of high-quality development initiatives for key industrial chains; and accelerating the manufacturing sector's transition toward digitalization and intelligent transformation."
https://english.news.cn/20251118/50d6983e5a384947b6657f8255e6071c/c.html

They don't want to decrease manufacturing, they want to upgrade it with automation and AI.

>>2665936
>Why would China want to give up its dominance over the world's manufacturing anyway? That's the main advantage it has which no one else does.
It doesn't, which is why they're also leveraging things such as rare earth mineral refining capability and exclusive trade deals with nations rich in natural resources in the hopes that the things that everyone else needs to automate everything (and then produce things with their automated factories) will nonetheless still run through China essentially as a requirement. Their continued investment into AI and other supposed future-tech is another example of this approach.

>>2665941
>They don't want to decrease manufacturing, they want to upgrade it with automation and AI.
Like I said, it's not that they "want" to decrease manufacturing, it's that their consumer base wants more products made cheaper. They are selective with their outsourcing as a pressure valve, and outsource "internally" to their underclass whenever possible. The main point is that like any other developing nation, as they become richer, their population becomes less and less interested in working in factories. This isn't a sign of any sort of desire to move away from state capitalism, it's just the same development pattern for consumer economies that we have seen elsewhere.

>>2664723
>Fascism would never last long or be truly effective in a small country with limited geopolitical reach, because fascism requires the cannibalization of nearby states. If you'd lose your first wartime venture or are strangled economically on the global stage, fascism essentially dies in the crib.
Then fascism has never been successful, since this is what happened to Germany, Italy and Japan.

>>2665944
>fascism has never been successful
Correct.

>>2665943
>they're also leveraging things such as rare earth mineral refining capability and exclusive trade deals with nations rich in natural resources in the hopes that the things that everyone else needs to automate everything (and then produce things with their automated factories) will nonetheless still run through China essentially as a requirement
But then there isn't any de-industrialization and using poorer countries to manufacture ala America.
>it's that their consumer base wants more products made cheaper
Automation will do that though.
>>2665943
>They are selective with their outsourcing as a pressure valve
Which country would they outsource what to?
>outsource "internally" to their underclass whenever possible
Dude every country with manufacturing "outsources internally" to the working class

>>2665949
>But then there isn't any de-industrialization and using poorer countries to manufacture ala America.
There is. And also, nothing in the articles linked in >>2665941 says that they aren't doing this, only that they're continuing to do it at home.

https://www.idnfinancials.com/news/57093/china-factory-exodus-drives-vietnam-as-global-manufacturing-hub

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/logistics/our-insights/diversifying-global-supply-chains-opportunities-in-southeast-asia

https://arc-group.com/chinese-companies-expanding-supply-chains-southeast-asia

The Belt and Road initiative in and of itself is also analogous to American foreign investment aimed at creating international manufacturing hubs that are compliant to the benefactor country.

>Automation will do that though.
Eventually. But until then, foreign investment continues in order to make the economics work.

>Which country would they outsource what to?
See above.

>Dude every country with manufacturing "outsources internally" to the working class
I understand that it's something of a touchy subject, but there is state-sponsored oppression of certain factory worker groups similar to prison work slavery in the US. I'm referring to this and similar questionable practices that don't point towards a desire for socialist stewardship of the economy.

>>2665949
>>2665961 (You)
Some additional stuff. Here is an interesting read on China's "deindustrialization." Keep in mind that I agree with you that they eventually want to automate; the important element of "deindustrialization" here is that they, like the US, are moving workers out of "hard labor" and towards service industries.

https://archive.is/20250309141712/https://www.economist.com/china/2025/02/27/who-works-where-doing-what-in-china

Here is a breakdown of China's labor changes, with some interesting notes about how younger Chinese workers do not want to be manufacturers:

https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-labor-force-data-trends-and-future-outlook/

Here's an article specifically about the lack of willingness of younger generations to engage in manufacturing labor:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/younger-chinese-are-spurning-factory-jobs-that-power-economy-2022-11-21/

Here is a stats breakdown showing an admittedly minor decline in industrial job numbers but a huge drop in agriculture and boom in services.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270327/distribution-of-the-workforce-across-economic-sectors-in-china/?srsltid=AfmBOop89o9PVaB7O7x-mFwKYyq8J-90J1p4TwH6UmRcOEJJMvTDts8F

>>2665961
>There is. And also, nothing in the articles linked in >>2665941 (You) says that they aren't doing this, only that they're continuing to do it at home.
If they're continuing to manufacture at the same level domestically, what consumer benefit could offshoring bring? They already produce a massive surplus of manufactured goods, being an export country and all.
>https://www.idnfinancials.com/news/57093/china-factory-exodus-drives-vietnam-as-global-manufacturing-hub
>The shift is fuelled by an exodus of Chinese manufacturers relocating operations southward in response to US tariffs and global supply chain restructuring.
Offshoring to dodge tariffs is not the same as what you're describing.
>The Belt and Road initiative in and of itself is also analogous to American foreign investment aimed at creating international manufacturing hubs that are compliant to the benefactor country.
The Belt and Road construction of trade route infrastructure seems to me more like facilitating Chinese exports and building up countries in Africa/Latin America to be richer so they can replace Western consumption.
>But until then, foreign investment continues in order to make the economics work.
Automation is happening as we speak though, perhaps more rapidly than anywhere else in the world, with the EV and electronics industries are already using fully automated factories. Investing in foreign manufacturing is a long-term thing and makes no sense for consumer economics in the face of accelerating automation, I think it's more to avoid the Western tariffs placed on nearly all Chinese products. The combination of increasing automation and progressive decoupling from America is likely to halt such endeavors.
>>2665994
>the important element of "deindustrialization" here is that they, like the US, are moving workers out of "hard labor" and towards service industries.
Yes of course, I don't see why that's a bad thing though if the work is shifted onto robots and not other people.
>huge drop in agriculture and boom in services
The government may try to create a return in agriculture due to concerns of food insecurity in the event of blockade. I know they're trying to increase the domestic production of wheat and meat, stats show that agriculture in those areas is growing:
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202601/19/WS696df4dfa310d6866eb348a0.html

>>2665999
>what consumer benefit could offshoring bring?
Cheaper prices (though this is fluxuating), younger workforces, and new consumer markets which means more profits which means more spending and economic activity back home. From the article you quoted:

>While Vietnam still offers a “tariff dividend”, labour and land costs have risen sharply.
>In Bac Ninh, industrial land prices now exceed some Chinese regions. Yet demographics provide fresh momentum: millions of young workers are entering the labour force, while China’s manufacturing workforce is ageing.

From the McKinsey article:
>Notably, 88 percent of Southeast Asian trade flows stay within the Asia–Pacific (APAC) region.12 This may be a consequence of Chinese investment in manufacturing production in the region: around 30 percent of exports flow to China.
>Chemicals exports to Mainland China have more than doubled since 2016, as have electronics exports to Mainland China, Taiwan, and the United States.
>In Indonesia, opportunities could be found in chemicals and metals export routes to China. For example, metals exports stood at 15 million tons in 2023, growing by 179 percent compared to 2016.
>Malaysia exports around 10 million tons of metals a year, the majority of which is to China, and around 3 million tons of electronics a year, the majority of which is to the United States.
So they aren't just going to the US as a tariff dodge.

>Offshoring to dodge tariffs is not the same as what you're describing.
>and global supply chain restructuring.
You missed this bit. The articles I linked discuss this in depth.

>The Belt and Road construction of trade route infrastructure seems to me more like facilitating Chinese exports and building up countries in Africa/Latin America to be richer so they can replace Western consumption.
How do they become richer? Via trade with and manufacturing for China and affiliated nations. See South Korea, Japan. China isn't just giving them free money to round-trip back to their factories. That money is being invested into creating beneficial returns.

>Automation is happening as we speak though
Sure, but it's not here yet. Moving to other countries is a "right now" solution and will likely be reversed eventually. Take a look at some of the articles linked in >>2665994 that discuss the other challenges related to China keeping manufacturing entirely in-house in the immediate.

>I don't see why that's a bad thing though if the work is shifted onto robots and not other people.
There isn't anything bad about it. I'm just saying that this isn't a sign of "China ushering in global socialism." It's a sign of a developing service economy.

>The government may try to create a return in agriculture due to concerns of food insecurity in the event of blockade.
It's certainly possible. If young Chinese workers don't want to work in factories though, I don't think farms will fare much better.

>>2666009
Indonesia did it themselves though, they banned the export of certain raw metals, such as their biggest metal export, nickel, in order to force them to be processed domestically.
https://www.iea.org/policies/16084-prohibition-of-the-export-of-nickel-ore
Malaysia has instituted similar policies.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/malaysias-ban-raw-rare-earths-exports-remains-despite-us-deal-trade-minister-2025-10-29/
So while they're not related to US tariffs, these were still driven by foreign export restrictions on China.
>There isn't anything bad about it. I'm just saying that this isn't a sign of "China ushering in global socialism." It's a sign of a developing service economy.
Oh I see. But isn't developing full automation beneficial to the advance towards socialism? People generally don't want to do hard work, especially factory work, when they aren't in poverty and have other choices. Automation solves that problem by removing the need for human manual labor entirely.
>If young Chinese workers don't want to work in factories though, I don't think farms will fare much better.
Young Chinese workers are mostly competing for white collar jobs, but I've seen a trend of people tiring of the academic/corporate rat race and opting for agriculture for psychological reasons(simpler life, quieter, etc). The fact that many of their families already own rural land or operate farms helps with this.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/17/chinese-millennials-are-quitting-their-empty-city-jobs-to-find-fulfilment-as-farmers
I think an agricultural rebound is probable, farm automation like drones and self-driving tractors will also reduce the labor necessary.

>>2666036
>So while they're not related to US tariffs, these were still driven by foreign export restrictions on China.
The point is more that China is going to these smaller countries in the first place. China has plenty of these metals within their borders. They bought them to refine and sell. They can't refine them themselves anymore, but they still buy it for the sake of keeping their market dominance by way of making everyone else buy it from them. Regardless, if you want to discount these examples, that's okay; the articles still discuss others.

>“In fact, the global furniture production hub shifted from Dongguan to Binh Duong in 2018,” said a Chinese furniture factory owner. “That industry will not return to China.”

>But isn't developing full automation beneficial to the advance towards socialism?
Sure, but every developed nation is *also* doing this, and nobody is making any threads asking if the United States is going to usher in global socialism once Waymo, Cruise, et. al. solve the spatial navigation machine learning problem for very obvious reasons. All that I'm saying is that, at present, there is A.) nothing particularly special about the current trajectory of China's economic development, and B.) no real indications that they plan on making a global socialist pivot, especially since "automated socialism for me and global trade through my markets for you" is patently not global socialism either. Automated manufacturing will still require resource exploitation in the wider global market.

(I will note here though that "full automation," if possible, will probably be the biggest accelerationist factor in any country in which it occurs towards at the very least a welfare state if not socialism, because at that point societies will be forced to pay people the dividends of automated work in order for the economy and its surrounding society to remain stable.)

I think that part of the reason why people are so hung up on China and Russia is because those are the only past or present superpowers with any real connection to former socialist / communist ideals and ideas, prompting a certain amount of fearful "if not them, who?" thinking in the minds of those who really want to see global socialism or communism in their lifetime. I just don't think that the current Chinese government is interested in doing that; that's not to say that it could never happen in China, but I think if it were to happen it would be in a revolutionary context rather than anything enacted by the current Chinese government. China does not have the immunity from the potential for a fascist backslide in the face of economic uncertainty that I think lots of people seem to bestow upon it. It's a state capitalist enterprise, through and through.

>I've seen a trend of people tiring of the academic/corporate rat race and opting for agriculture for psychological reasons(simpler life, quieter, etc). The fact that many of their families already own rural land or operate farms helps with this.
I think this movement will ultimately prove to be rather niche considering the current economic pressures for young workers in the country. The problem with making things like farming and manufacturing into jobs as well-paid as services is that everything runs off of being able to eat and being able to receive raw materials; if prices for those go up, then prices for everything else goes up too, which makes selling things for more returns a very difficult prospect (this is why there are so many farm subsidies in the US). It's possible that China could subsidize its farming industry to a huge degree, but at least personally I haven't seen nearly as much funding go in that direction as it has towards their tech sector. They'd likely rather automate their farms too.

>>2666044
>China has plenty of these metals within their borders
Not really, we're talking mineral deposits here, not refining. There are plenty of metals for which China does not have sufficient domestic deposits to supply its industry.
>Sure, but every developed nation is *also* doing this, and nobody is making any threads asking if the United States is going to usher in global socialism once Waymo, Cruise, et. al. solve the spatial navigation machine learning problem for very obvious reasons.
Food delivery and taxis isn't exactly the most useful area of automation. The only major company I'm seeing that's seriously implementing automated factories is Tesla, and without heavy government involvement and focus like there is in China, the majority of American industry, mining, farming, etc. is not likely to become automated in the near future.
>"automated socialism for me and global trade through my markets for you" is patently not global socialism either.
But prosperous automated socialism in one country is already a bigger step than what has happened so far, which is prosperous socialism nowhere. The world isn't exactly ripe for global socialism with how strong anti-socialist forces, both military and ideological, are in nearly every region of the world. But having a socialist society where truly nobody is poor will deal a massive ideological blow to the global conception of "socialism is when tyranny" or "socialism is when everybody starves equally", not to mention the challenge to capitalist military hegemony.
>Automated manufacturing will still require resource exploitation in the wider global market.
It will require continued trading for minerals from Russia, Africa and South America. However, trading for raw resources is not necessarily exploitation, and these countries can be built up through the Belt and Road rather than being turned into extractive colonies.
>I will note here though that "full automation," if possible, will probably be the biggest accelerationist factor in any country in which it occurs towards at the very least a welfare state if not socialism, because at that point societies will be forced to pay people the dividends of automated work in order for the economy and its surrounding society to remain stable.
This is exactly why I think full automation is the most promising route, it materially forces the shift towards socialism through the obsolescence of human manual labor and mass unemployment. This is probably the easiest way for China to be turned back onto the socialist road in spite of capitalism being in the interests of many elites, and I suspect it is why the CPC has set the goal of "socialist modernization" by 2035 and "advanced socialism" by 2050. In my view, socialist modernization is: full/near-full automation, peer with or surpassing Western-bloc innovation in all areas such as EUV, energy grid revamped to be almost fully green with combustion vehicles phased out, and perhaps even approaching carbon neutral.
>I think that part of the reason why people are so hung up on China and Russia is because those are the only past or present superpowers with any real connection to former socialist / communist ideals and ideas, prompting a certain amount of fearful "if not them, who?" thinking in the minds of those who really want to see global socialism or communism in their lifetime.
I think it really is "if not them who". Not a big believer in Russia, but I just really don't think anyone else other than China is even materially capable of it in the foreseeable future(this century). Small countries must either participate in imperialism, like the EU client states, or else be imperialized, and it's hard for countries such as Venezuela to even so much as gain sympathy due to the majority of the world being conditioned since birth to see "Bolivarian" and cry dictator. The world is once again returning to multipolarity, and if as you say China is just state capitalism waiting for a fascist backslide, then no great power is socialist and any small socialist projects will be consumed as the superpowers and regional powers carve out their spheres of influence.
>It's possible that China could subsidize its farming industry to a huge degree, but at least personally I haven't seen nearly as much funding go in that direction as it has towards their tech sector.
Agricultural subsidies in China have been growing in recent years. They stalled in 2015 at about 120 billion but they're up to 200 billion in its 2025 WTO notification.

>>2660051
>Given that, when can we expect China to implement global socialism?

the chinese are not your kitchen boys you lazy shit
fight for your liberation yourself
the gall on you, you will sit with funko pop in your ass, gulp starbucks and play video games while other people have to toil and present socialism on a silver platter for you
fuck you treatlerite scum

>>2667450
>There are plenty of metals for which China does not have sufficient domestic deposits to supply its industry.
The metals being discussed in these trade papers are not those metals.

>Food delivery and taxis isn't exactly the most useful area of automation.
This is short-sighted. The real-world mobility problem is *the* present holy grail of robotics. Real-world mobility with the potential to adapt to any environment and sense and target things in the environment immediately is how you become capable of automating things like warehouses, farms, businesses, homes, construction, mining, and anything that specifically isn't an assembly line. Solving this problem is actually the single *largest* leap towards total automation. Elon Musk isn't wrong at all in saying that if he solves real-world mobility with Tesla, he can plug it into Optimus and start making personal robots. He isn't going to be the one to do it, though, because his approach to the solution is a terrible one. If you're a big believer in automation being the future of socialism, I would suggest looking into this topic further to really get a handle on the current state of robotics development and what's still needed to automate humanity's drudgery.


>But prosperous automated socialism in one country is already a bigger step than what has happened so far, which is prosperous socialism nowhere.
Perhaps, but this is a thread about China ushering in *global* socialism. I do not think this js something that they're interested in doing. I'm actually not even certain that they're all that interested in internal socialism either, considering their social classes are quite stratified.

>having a socialist society where truly nobody is poor will deal a massive ideological blow to the global conception of "socialism is when tyranny" or "socialism is when everybody starves equally"
I don't disagree, but again, I don't see any evidence that they're open to moving in this direction. I also think that excusing exploitative global resource extraction because it's going to a socialist state is probably not the best line of thought, especially if the countries doing the extracting don't really see much of a difference selling to China over selling to anyone else. Some might argue that socialism riding on the back of global capitalism isn't actually socialism at all, since once the capitalist party stops or falters, so will the socialism. It seems to set a dangerous set of expectations and encourages people to cheer for the very same systems they claim to want to do away with for the sake of making sure a figurehead that isn't proving what they want to prove anyway doesn't falter. I would argue that many people are acting like this already.

But again—I think all of this is a mute point considering China does not appear to be meaningfully moving towards socialism.

>trading for raw resources is not necessarily exploitation
While true, I haven't seen any evidence that China js particularly picky regarding the rights, pay, ownership, etc, of the workers of any of the places they trade with. I don't think this is a concern for them.

>it materially forces the shift towards socialism through the obsolescence of human manual labor and mass unemployment.
I think it's a little more complicated than this. It materially forces *welfare,* absolutely, and lays the groundwork for a society where socialism *can* appear, but there are still other issues that will have to be dealt with after this. For instance, humans aren't interested in automating *every* form of work, as proven by generative AI. People will still want real human actors. People will still want real human musicians. People will still want real human artists, craftsmen, therapists, and perhaps even doctors and spokespeople. Any human-facing concern will likely still require a human person.

What will be done with the people who "must" work those jobs, or even with the people who "want" to? Will these people receive the same stipend but still have go to work, or will they receive more? Will we ban people for selling their art or other forms of labor for money? What about people who invest in businesses or overseas capital markets? If not, the potential for resource accumulation above that of the rest of the population will occur. If we do, will the population actually be okay with being unable to do what they see fit with their stipend or the fruits of their labor?

This isn't to say that these are unanswerable questions, just that automation, though a massive step forward, is not a "one-stop shop" socialism causer, and in fact hides the fact that a non-socialist system might be capable of existing for quite some time despite automation and universal basic income.

>Agricultural subsidies in China have been growing in recent years. They stalled in 2015 at about 120 billion but they're up to 200 billion in its 2025 WTO notification.
Interesting if true. It's been hard to find total tech investment numbers, but I've seen anywhere from around that amount to over twice that amount.

They don't even have socialism in China, you want them to export it?!

socialism is when dirigsme

>>2660051
None of this understands the fundamental town-country contradiction underlying imperialism. With the development of communications and remote work you can hire an engineer in the imperial periphery for a fraction of the cost. The centralization of mental labor in the town and physical labor in the country is increasingly obsolete. Consequently, China simply cannot centralize mental labor and rely on physical labor abroad. I am unsure how imperialism will evolve as the town-country contradiction sharpens to increasing absurdity in the age of remote work.