/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>671722
The CPC isn’t one government but multiple governments operating on multiple systems that best allow the economic development and security of the state of China
Some governments can be orthodox socialist others can be pro market it all depends on whose running what and what works

Corporatism.

>>671723
the local govs still have to follow the directives and ideas of the central gov


>>671725

idk if corporatism supports something like the common prosperity campaign

>>671726
True but you get the main points of my post. The evolution of political ideas in China wouldn’t be a how do I describe it “a full regional change” but rather a series of small or potentially nonexistent changes varied between provinces and human settlements like towns cities villages etc

>>671729
hmm that is indeed true hmm

>>671729
however still the ccp gov often can influence and push the direction of where the local gov can go. Which is what we are seeing with xi encouraging and supporting a more leftword direction of the nation.

I think its gonna be a sorta local and central gov combined change, where the local govs still do their own thing but are influenced and pushed by the central gov to go to a certain direction

>>671726
>idk if corporatism supports something like the common prosperity campaign
It definitely does. Corporatism is the state mediation between classes. Common Prosperity is basically just a form of taxation.

>>671736
hmm and do you believe that if china remains the mixed market system, we will see a rise of corporatist with socialist characteristics supporters over time.

especially if america and the west keeps decaying?

>>671723
This is true: you could potentially have various degrees of socialization between provinces due to the vast autonomy they enjoy.
That said I see it unlikely that a single province could socialize its economy without getting problems from the others (or giving problems to them).

>>671722
In the 1930s, and then again in the 1960s, many liberals and nationalists were enamored with the USSR, and 'Marxism-Leninism' came to be admired for bringing national industrial development and economic stability. Actual Marxist thought was sidelined and people aligned themselves with the Soviets for the promise of trade deals or economic growth.

Perhaps the same thing will happen again if China continues to post growth while the rest of the world stagnates. 'Socialism' will come to mean 'state-led industrial development and politics-blind international investment.' African states will become the premier practitioners of 'socialism' will their well-regulated market economies, high GDP growth, and rapid urbanization. Factions within the developed world will agitate for 'socialization' (nationalization) of key industries to boost profitability, and suppress those pesky 'human rights' whiners in favor of doing business with the liberalizing and rapidly growing economies of Cuba, North Korea and Syria.

>>671931
so a second dirigsme wave hmm

>>671942
If only, I'd be a great improvement.

>>671953
I mean its already happening in africa with their return to industrial policy shit, and eu is going back to some degree of industrial policy

the only place where this aint happening is the us

In terms of economic policy, Michael Hudson believes they're basically practicing state-led industrial capitalism which is what the U.S. and Germany did to become rich but they're transitioning straight into socialism.

>>671722
They have a need to develop their own ideology to export to other countries. Time of isolation is over.

>>671722
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism#Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics
There is your answer.

I happen to be writing an essay on this very topic. The reality is that whatever China decides, its present emphasis on central planning and state control of the market flies in the face of the neoliberal order. Transnational capital coverts China's gargantuan market with its upwardly mobile consumer base. But the CCP won't let them have it. The CCP has been known to change its policies toward foreign investment on a whim and without warning, or to forcibly restructure its largest firms without "shareholder input." No other country in the world has all of these features: a powerful central government, a massive economy, and nearly a 1/5th of the world population. Thus how China chooses to throw around its economic weight has tremendous global ramifications. Say what you will of the CCP, but it stands as the last bastion of defiance against the total conquest of the world by global finance capital.

And while China certainly flirts with foreign capital, this is always a provisional and revocable relationship rather than the default. Therefore the dynamic China creates with international capital is of the utmost world-historical importance. Simply by not cooperating with the global economic norm whilst simultaneously being economically powerful, China is the only formidable force which presents any opposition to neoliberalism and corporate domination whatsoever.

>>673194
>coverts
covets

>>673194
well we have to remember that japan taiwan and sk used to have these characteristics, until america and its pro us liberals in these countries fucked over these countries economices. However besides that whats interesting is that before the fucking us and its us backed lackies ruined these countries, there was a rise of neo staties. People like amsden, chalmers johnson, ezra vogel and etc started pointing at the east and wrote multiple books on how statism works.

Now here comes china a country that wont refuse and is purging its liberals. And because of that i think we are going to see a second wave of neostatism, but instead of sk, japan taiwan simps its going to be instead china simps. Hell we already seeing it now with some people.

>>673194
>The CCP has been known to change its policies toward foreign investment on a whim and without warning, or to forcibly restructure its largest firms without "shareholder input."
One of my comrade works at a company that tries to attract and mediate Asian investments in Europe. He told me that out of the Asians he dealt with the Chinese private sphere has the most aggressive business culture in the sense that they will immediately jump ship to another company if they can save 0.01% on a deal. I always had the impression that they became such exactly because they know that they are on borrowed time and a tight leash. When it comes to the Chinese petit-bourgeois (family owned restaurants, shops, etc.) I've encountered way more generosity towards customers and mutual respect towards their business partners, so it really isn't a general "cultural thing," but Chinese big porky running like crazy to accumulate as fast as possible in the few years or decades he still has the opportunity to do so. I find it hilarious and super interesting that ultimately it's a Sisyphean ordeal on Chinese porky's part (because his shit will be taken eventually, and he knows), yet this makes them even more aggressive, hard working, calculating, disciplined, and efficient. They don't have the comfortable lifestyle Zuckerberg has, and they don't post selfies from the factory floor like Musk does "proving" how hard they bust their asses – they just do it.

On the consumption side however, they tend to be way more luxurious spenders like this guy from 12:00 who bought an entire building to serve as his private wine cellar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr-fBuK5K5E . Obviously part of it is due to being "nouveau riche" and not "being born into riches" (although even this is different now in the West, your typical start up millionaire wears a T-shirt and wants to look like a regular person), but I suspect that they know that eventually they won't get to have 6 luxury homes and private painting collections so they spend more willingly.

>>673250
Yes but nobody has the power to pull a fast one on China. It is too autonomous in its power now. It is no longer subject to the western imperialists, either militarily, culturally, or economically. If anything they are dependent on China as the "factory of the world." The tables have turned in that regard.

South Korea and Japan in their present incarnations are products of American hegemony. Two wars, WW2 and the Korean war, decided that. China repelled all traces of foreign imperialism from its borders . Foreign investors are treated almost as the Nanban trade in early modern Japan "southern barbarian traders" , sequestered to contained districts and subject to expulsion.

>>673256
It could just be a cultural trait that explains how China does business. The key difference is that it keeps its oligarchs on a leash, and the CCP can easily undo them. This is in contrast to the United States, which is ruled by its billionaire class and whose political class in Washington is merely their paid-for minions. This refusal to allow capital to rule society is itself a profound departure from global norms.

Xi has recognized that the policies that unleashed market forces in China has overstayed its welcome and has now shifted to a doctrine of "shared prosperity." China's mixed economy seems to consist of two phases. A full throttle market phase, followed by a more socialistically oriented consolidation or "reaping" phase in which the gains of that market phase are distributed according to public need. This places the Chinese business class in an awkward position. But as you noted, certain quirks in Chinese culture, a confucian remnant perhaps, almost makes these billionaires feel obligated to return the favor .

A good analogy perhaps is China's real property rights laws. In China nobody is allowed to "own land". You are able to purchase a decades long year land use right grant. 70 years for residential land use, for example. These grants may be renewed after submitting a new claim once the lease approaches an end. But the land is de facto
owned by the state or collectively.

In the same way, the affluent Chinese business class tacitly acknowledges that their wealth is borrowed from the Chinese people. It is a temporary privilege, not the foundation of a generational dynasty of pseudo-aristocrats. Eventually, the state will come to collect. It will return that wealth to the people from which it was borrowed.

This attitude is a profound departure from the west with drastically different–and in my opinion deranged–views of property ownership which confers an immutable and irrevocable ownership of land and assets to the capitalist who from there forward own a part of reality forever. Now Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have conquered vast tracts of land like neo-feudal lords and it's way more fucked up than it is in China.

Private individuals have a different relationship to property than the state.

>>671722
>china lacks the extreme militaristic conservative chauvanism and uh race nonsense fascist states had.
Hehehe

>>671722
>china lacks the extreme militaristic conservative chauvanism and uh race nonsense fascist states had
Half truth. Although China lacks such but Chinese culture is conservative.

>>673470
>Chinese culture is conservative.
Stop with such sweeping statements when you talk about 1/5th of the total human population, ffs. They are way more progressive about women than we in the West are, for example. Everything is a mixed bag when your sample size is in the billion+ range.

>>673535
He's probably a zoomer and doesn't remember American life before 2005. Ya know. When Bush was president, Rush ruled the airwaves and America was a deeply conservative country.

>>673549
>Rush ruled the airwaves
that shit came out when I was 5, so stop blaming me for it

p.s. shit graphics

Anyone else noticing how western Dengists are obsessed with standpoint epistemology? Is this a holdover from Deng's anti-Marxist double-down of Three Worlds Theory?

>>673561
no

>>671722
>How exactly will this affect political discourse?
>In a way a new term has to be made for the chinese model
this is the state of the western left. i'm literally facepalming over here

>>673561
Nah, you just don't understand things.

>>673453
It's been like weeks but I'd like to add to my own post here. Chinese statism differers from western statism in that collectivist norms are more deeply integrated in asiatic cultures. Does Chairman Xi strike you as a self-centered, egotistical lout like a Caligula or Trump? Not at all. He firmly believes himself and acts as though he is a public servant, recognizing that the whole (China) is greater than the part (himself). It is , tacitly or otherwise, an almost Taoist sentiment. And he has spent much of his career stamping out corruption and rectifying renegade elements. Like Mao, he is directly continuous with a thousands-year old governmental pattern in China in that he acknowledges in one form or another a Mandate of Heaven. Chinese statism differs from western statism in that it remains principled.

I am not one to discard the excesses and overreaches of the CCP. Neither am I trying to win social credit points. But keeping China together as a unified functioning social organism is a monumental task. This is 1/5th of the world's population.You could fit four Americas into China populationally speaking . A strong central government is the only solution, as it ever has been. Can you imagine what chaos would occur in a democratic China? It would be an incoherent cacophony. While I believe China should accord greater liberties to the individual, it can only do so if it inspirers and raises principled individuals with a firm cultural foundation footing. "Freedom is precious," said Lenin. "so precious that it must be rationed."

>>677142
Literally and undeniably every period of Chinese history where there was not a firm central government it was in a period of civil war. How else do you explain China? With few exceptions literally its entire history is a series of off and on again civil wars for thousands of years. Maoism was a great unifier and cultural stabilizer. Even if it had to break some eggs to make this omelet , the alternative was warlordism and combative cliques struggling for power.

>>673561
Most of them evolve from radlibs into Dengists so its natural for them to keep a trace of their past poltical self.