littlegreenpills
littlegreenpills
Poronto
Post rating:
+
solzhesnitchin posted:i think china is way more likely. dengism is probably correct and if socialism is achieved in our lifetime it will almost certainly be by the ccp.
it's hard to know how much of xi's pro-marxist push is complete bullshit, but i still find it encouraging. fwiw i had one really cool chinese history prof who has been visiting china steadily since mao era and he has faith in the party
you can only achieve socialism through cutting labor hours commensurately with the development of the productive forces and they aint doing that
Gibbonstrength
Gibbonstrength
Post rating:
~
littlegreenpills posted:solzhesnitchin posted:i think china is way more likely. dengism is probably correct and if socialism is achieved in our lifetime it will almost certainly be by the ccp.
it's hard to know how much of xi's pro-marxist push is complete bullshit, but i still find it encouraging. fwiw i had one really cool chinese history prof who has been visiting china steadily since mao era and he has faith in the party
you can only achieve socialism through cutting labor hours commensurately with the development of the productive forces and they aint doing that
I've seen it argued here recently (bhpn?) that China's productive forces aren't really being developed by foreign investment tho. So hey maybe they don't have to cut hours.
solzhesnitchin
solzhesnitchin
Post rating:
+
china still has low productivity and a lot of poverty. its recent growth has been based on serving as a location for hand assembly and other labour intensive low productivity manufacturing
i think the idea is to fully industrialize, increase productivity, and raise the standard of living first, and then start lowering working hours. i'm sure the vast majority of chinese people would still rather raise their standard of living than work less hours. there are also geopolitical reasons why it's a good idea to increase output rather than leisure time.
they are currently trying to transition to a higher productivity growth rate (rather than just a high output growth rate) by raising the value of their currency so that more capital goods can be imported and substituted for labour. it also has the effect of giving chinese workers more money per hour worked, which could be taken as leisure time or go into savings, but will more likely be spent on consumer goods.
i think the idea is to fully industrialize, increase productivity, and raise the standard of living first, and then start lowering working hours. i'm sure the vast majority of chinese people would still rather raise their standard of living than work less hours. there are also geopolitical reasons why it's a good idea to increase output rather than leisure time.
they are currently trying to transition to a higher productivity growth rate (rather than just a high output growth rate) by raising the value of their currency so that more capital goods can be imported and substituted for labour. it also has the effect of giving chinese workers more money per hour worked, which could be taken as leisure time or go into savings, but will more likely be spent on consumer goods.
Edited by solzhesnitchin ()
postposting
postposting
Post rating:
+++++
getfiscal posted:all chinese schools have marxism departments where people have to memorize like why having mcdonalds is socialist or whatever to get their scholarship or whatever
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
The CCP specifically arrests people who request that the government adhere to the constitution of the nation, so claiming that the nation is founded on communist values because they are built into the constitution is kind of a false start. As presumably the only person here who has actually taught in a Chinese university setting I can tell you that politics is seen as a joke even by those who teach it, and the textbooks are made to be deliberately boring to turn people off from the idea of politics in general. Imagine a textbook with no photos except black and white drawings of bearded 19th century communists subtitled with birth and death dates.
The teachers of these courses generally know that this is a joke and give the students lists of a few important facts to memorize for the tests then let them work on other homework, sleep or play with their cell phones during class, no attendance is usually taken. Schools establishing "Schools of Marxism" should be looked at much more as establishing schools of ideological control and nationalism. A common activity in university level "Marxism" classes is watching WWII era movies about fighting the Japanese. When President Xi says the magic words of Marxism and Communism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics then because all power flows from the font a smart university president blows with the wind, but I'm quite certain that if Xi could jettison the communist message from the party doctrine without repercussions/complete loss of historical raison d'etre and instead adopt all of the aspects of the 1930s Kuomintang party then I'm sure he would.
The CCP adheres far more to the nationalist and ideological rhetoric of something like the New Life Movement -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Movement but essentially it's a mix of reverence for the past glories of the Chinese nation which is magically different from all other human societies, elimination of internal enemies to the state (especially troublesome minorities), uplifting of the moral virtues of the Chinese people, rabid nationalism to regain China's previous position as the center of the world which it held for 5,000 years before it was attacked for no reason at all, and the need for strong leadership for the Chinese people in the form of an authoritarian government because Chinese people can not be trusted to have democracy due to their inherent corruption and family ties. If a lot of this stuff sounds contradictory to you then you're a fucking genius.
Kemal Ataturk said that if he could essentially flip a switch and turn all of the Turks Christian he'd do it, because his goal of modernizing and creating a nation was stymied at multiple turns by his people's insistence on an Islamic identity. The Chinese government has for 70 years insisted that it's a Communist government and that Communism was correct. If they drop that idea then they lose all legitimacy. Ask any Chinese person what Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is and be prepared for a fun ride into either eye rolling or meaningless slogans.
Saying that China is embracing Communism and the Party supports a future transition to Full COmmunism and then throwing out some shitty university's School of Communism webpage is like saying the USA's policy is dictated by Noam Chomsky at premiere American university Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Everything going on in the CCP now is designed to ferret out the followers of Jiang Zemin as Xi Jinping solidifies his completely authoritarian control over the party. He's circumvented everyone in the Politburo Standing Committee and created 'Working Groups' to take over the functioning of departments of state. Imagine if every department in the US was controlled by a powerful dude who got to treat it as his own personal fiefdom (I'm not being sexist they're all dudes). Then the American president, who previously had to work via cooperation and coercion to get stuff done through these people in charge of the departments in a completely opaque and non-democratic way, decides to create a Secretary of Energy Helper position and takes over the control of the Dept. of Energy. Since he's made clear he will drop people for corruption for not playing ball, you essentially let him do it. Because everyone at every level of Chinese government is corrupt and has practiced malfeasance and cooked the books to get promoted to their current level of power, when you're arresting and ruining people for corruption, then everyone is on the line. This is possible because no one is expected to follow the law in China, because the law doesnt matter. The institutions of state are meaningless. The 'Governor' of Tibet is an ethnic Tibetan, but the CCP Party Secretary of Tibet is where the actual decisions are made. There isn't even a separate track for government/party promotion. If you do a 'good job' as governor of a province you might be promoted to party secretary of that province and have some real power. Same is true of city governments.
When you take the bullshit of Communism in China seriously then you reveal your complete ignorance because not even the Chinese take it seriously, so why do you think you know better than them?
l4fQh8E3eKY
This is the purpose of COmmunism in China now, a bunch of fat rich old men clap for Red Songs then go out to raid the pension fund and use the money to buy houses in Los Angeles ARGH YOURE SO FUCKING STUPID!!! *hits own head with frying pan*
The teachers of these courses generally know that this is a joke and give the students lists of a few important facts to memorize for the tests then let them work on other homework, sleep or play with their cell phones during class, no attendance is usually taken. Schools establishing "Schools of Marxism" should be looked at much more as establishing schools of ideological control and nationalism. A common activity in university level "Marxism" classes is watching WWII era movies about fighting the Japanese. When President Xi says the magic words of Marxism and Communism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics then because all power flows from the font a smart university president blows with the wind, but I'm quite certain that if Xi could jettison the communist message from the party doctrine without repercussions/complete loss of historical raison d'etre and instead adopt all of the aspects of the 1930s Kuomintang party then I'm sure he would.
The CCP adheres far more to the nationalist and ideological rhetoric of something like the New Life Movement -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Movement but essentially it's a mix of reverence for the past glories of the Chinese nation which is magically different from all other human societies, elimination of internal enemies to the state (especially troublesome minorities), uplifting of the moral virtues of the Chinese people, rabid nationalism to regain China's previous position as the center of the world which it held for 5,000 years before it was attacked for no reason at all, and the need for strong leadership for the Chinese people in the form of an authoritarian government because Chinese people can not be trusted to have democracy due to their inherent corruption and family ties. If a lot of this stuff sounds contradictory to you then you're a fucking genius.
Kemal Ataturk said that if he could essentially flip a switch and turn all of the Turks Christian he'd do it, because his goal of modernizing and creating a nation was stymied at multiple turns by his people's insistence on an Islamic identity. The Chinese government has for 70 years insisted that it's a Communist government and that Communism was correct. If they drop that idea then they lose all legitimacy. Ask any Chinese person what Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is and be prepared for a fun ride into either eye rolling or meaningless slogans.
Saying that China is embracing Communism and the Party supports a future transition to Full COmmunism and then throwing out some shitty university's School of Communism webpage is like saying the USA's policy is dictated by Noam Chomsky at premiere American university Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Everything going on in the CCP now is designed to ferret out the followers of Jiang Zemin as Xi Jinping solidifies his completely authoritarian control over the party. He's circumvented everyone in the Politburo Standing Committee and created 'Working Groups' to take over the functioning of departments of state. Imagine if every department in the US was controlled by a powerful dude who got to treat it as his own personal fiefdom (I'm not being sexist they're all dudes). Then the American president, who previously had to work via cooperation and coercion to get stuff done through these people in charge of the departments in a completely opaque and non-democratic way, decides to create a Secretary of Energy Helper position and takes over the control of the Dept. of Energy. Since he's made clear he will drop people for corruption for not playing ball, you essentially let him do it. Because everyone at every level of Chinese government is corrupt and has practiced malfeasance and cooked the books to get promoted to their current level of power, when you're arresting and ruining people for corruption, then everyone is on the line. This is possible because no one is expected to follow the law in China, because the law doesnt matter. The institutions of state are meaningless. The 'Governor' of Tibet is an ethnic Tibetan, but the CCP Party Secretary of Tibet is where the actual decisions are made. There isn't even a separate track for government/party promotion. If you do a 'good job' as governor of a province you might be promoted to party secretary of that province and have some real power. Same is true of city governments.
When you take the bullshit of Communism in China seriously then you reveal your complete ignorance because not even the Chinese take it seriously, so why do you think you know better than them?
l4fQh8E3eKY
This is the purpose of COmmunism in China now, a bunch of fat rich old men clap for Red Songs then go out to raid the pension fund and use the money to buy houses in Los Angeles ARGH YOURE SO FUCKING STUPID!!! *hits own head with frying pan*
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
An expat in China with orientalist beliefs?! 
chickeon
chickeon
chickeon
Post rating:
~
how do you get work teaching a t a chinese university? what were you teaching mang
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
lol criticism of Chinese as the saviors of Communism complete with fully accounted actual facts rather than paeans praying that the Chinese will somehow inscrutably save us from Capitalism?? must be ORIENTALISM rearing it's ugly head. Sorry, Guy With Knowledge Rather Than Psychomania, the ghost of Edward Said has lain the mummy's curse upon you and all of your descendants to 7 degrees of relation!!
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
FSAD's explaining to me how the Chinese government works, but... the stuff he;s saying is contrary to my apocalyptic vision of some kind of Marxist version of the singularity!?! I'd better post the word orientalism...*relaxes* Ahh... Marx, we'll all be with you soon, the Chinese are definitely going to bring about full communism any day now... *days turn into years and a pile of bleached bones lies upon an eternal wasteland*
TheIneff
TheIneff
Post rating:
~
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
I was teaching classes in the department of Occidentalist Studies at Caonima University. I taught Why Foreign Man Have Strong Foreign Body 101 and a graduate level course on Drinking Cold Water - For Foreigners Is OK But Chinese Have Different Body Quality
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
+
FSAD posted:Imagine a textbook with no photos except black and white drawings of bearded 19th century communists subtitled with birth and death dates.
Imagine it?? Im already masturbating to it!
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
+
lol @ people upvoting that post.
1. China is not lawless. The construction of a new legal system after the cultural revolution is one of the most revolutionary event for jurisprudence in history. That you conceive of it as lawless is pure orientalism, that it has a different function and is not rooted in bourgeois natural law ideology is a plus not a minus. A real socialist critique would be the rise of this legal order on a Schmittian normativism against the socialist juridicial epistemological break of the 1975 constitution, but this is still more democratic than bourgeois parliamentarism.
2. China is not reviving the 'new life movement'. This is again pure orientalism. No one says that Obama is reviving the bourgeois reactionary coalition of the Rutherford B. Hayes presidency nor that the election of Jeremy Corbyn is a revival of the Glorious revolution. This is because first world white people are the makers of history while third world non-whites are doomed to repeat pre-modern social forms until they become white or submit to bourgeois liberalism. China is creating something new, whether you beileve this is socialist or not is a discussion we have had a lot on this site recently in much less crude terms.
3. Related to this is 'corruption', which is a word like 'culture' and 'tribe' that has gained new life under multicultural racism. That China is considered corrupt despite overwhelming popular support, while the South Korean government is considered 'open' despite repeated illegal actions by the president who's sole goal is to rehabilitate her dictator father is simply a more refined postmodern form of orientalism which eliminates the loose categories of race in favor of pure obedience to capitalism.
4. That petty bourgeois and bourgeois students in the developed areas of China often have bourgeois consciousness should be no surprise. Try to go to Harlem and ask people what they think about the American system of government and capitalism and you will quickly find that the 'American people' are basically communist revolutionaries.
5. Your one concrete example is the new state forms that the CCP is creating (saying Xi Jinping is solidifying authoritarian control wouldn't fly here if one said it about Mao but I guess people will upvote anything with more than 5 words) is utterly insignificant, working groups have existed since 1958 and are in the constitution. Unless you think the congressional panel on Benghazi is a significant new development in American forms of government than this is pure orientalism and reading tea leaves on the back of The Diplomat. Far more significant is the policy of party organizations in any private enterprise with more than 3 CCP members, but this has not been reported in the west because it does not fit orientalist stereotypes.
I'm sure I'll see you in a bar in Jinqiao rambling about the damn Chinese ripping you off and how your not racist but anyone who doesn't see that the Chinese are just lesser people is in denial. Buy me a drink.
1. China is not lawless. The construction of a new legal system after the cultural revolution is one of the most revolutionary event for jurisprudence in history. That you conceive of it as lawless is pure orientalism, that it has a different function and is not rooted in bourgeois natural law ideology is a plus not a minus. A real socialist critique would be the rise of this legal order on a Schmittian normativism against the socialist juridicial epistemological break of the 1975 constitution, but this is still more democratic than bourgeois parliamentarism.
2. China is not reviving the 'new life movement'. This is again pure orientalism. No one says that Obama is reviving the bourgeois reactionary coalition of the Rutherford B. Hayes presidency nor that the election of Jeremy Corbyn is a revival of the Glorious revolution. This is because first world white people are the makers of history while third world non-whites are doomed to repeat pre-modern social forms until they become white or submit to bourgeois liberalism. China is creating something new, whether you beileve this is socialist or not is a discussion we have had a lot on this site recently in much less crude terms.
3. Related to this is 'corruption', which is a word like 'culture' and 'tribe' that has gained new life under multicultural racism. That China is considered corrupt despite overwhelming popular support, while the South Korean government is considered 'open' despite repeated illegal actions by the president who's sole goal is to rehabilitate her dictator father is simply a more refined postmodern form of orientalism which eliminates the loose categories of race in favor of pure obedience to capitalism.
4. That petty bourgeois and bourgeois students in the developed areas of China often have bourgeois consciousness should be no surprise. Try to go to Harlem and ask people what they think about the American system of government and capitalism and you will quickly find that the 'American people' are basically communist revolutionaries.
5. Your one concrete example is the new state forms that the CCP is creating (saying Xi Jinping is solidifying authoritarian control wouldn't fly here if one said it about Mao but I guess people will upvote anything with more than 5 words) is utterly insignificant, working groups have existed since 1958 and are in the constitution. Unless you think the congressional panel on Benghazi is a significant new development in American forms of government than this is pure orientalism and reading tea leaves on the back of The Diplomat. Far more significant is the policy of party organizations in any private enterprise with more than 3 CCP members, but this has not been reported in the west because it does not fit orientalist stereotypes.
I'm sure I'll see you in a bar in Jinqiao rambling about the damn Chinese ripping you off and how your not racist but anyone who doesn't see that the Chinese are just lesser people is in denial. Buy me a drink.
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
The thing is I know you're a smart person but you're literally trying to fit things into a worldview which makes you happy rather than looking at things objectively. I mean you're arguing that calling China corrupt is orientalist when China itself, both the government and people, calls itself corrupt, and by corrupt we mean the trading of money for influence that business/persons of wealth should not have. The corruption is essentially systematized in the same way that dirty police in Scorpio are expected to take some cash or they're not trustworthy. The government has set up a system whereby any official within the government is not able to achieve the actual trappings of the middle class lifestyle that is an obsession in China (rightly so, who doesn't want to be comfortable?) WITHOUT corruption. Pay your civil servants a wage far below that available in the private sector and they're literally forced into corruption from the lowest level because who can buy a house or a car without a decent wage, and who can get a decent wage in the government without being corrupt?
China's legislature is the wealthiest in the world, it dwarfs that of the United States by orders of magnitude, because rather than the American system of Become Wealthy->Think You Know Better Than Others Because You Are Wealthy->Buy A Seat In The Legislature. The Chinese system is, Get Into The Government->Use That Power To Enrich Yourself And Your Family->Use Those Riches To Climb The Ladder->Get Rich Bitch. There are strong reports that the system is literally reaching the point of paying your superior to get a promotion which enables you to collect larger bribes. But apparently it's orientalist to consider this corruption, maybe it's just a new socialist mode of human relationships that just happens to assume the same form of any other kleptocracy. Also as an aside, the glorious People's Liberation Army is thought to be completely unable to fight a war due to this sort of corruption within the military ranks, and Xi Jinping is trying to clean it up frantically, so where the fuck do you get off trying to Newspeak the definition of corruption away into me being an orientalist.
You worry about petty bourgeois opinions but whose opinions are you actually reflecting from among the Chinese consciousness. Since China literally outlaws non-governmental opinion polling what else can we rely on apart from personal experience, please give me a real answer rather than debating the socialist meaning of opinion. The overwhelming evidence is that the Chinese population is focused on materialist gains, and that they are unhappy with corruption, though they're also more than willing to take part in that corruption themselves because they see no point in being 'clean' when everyone else is getting rich as they pilfer the general welfare funds and extract bribes for doing the things they should be doing as part of their job. Again, whose opinions should we be taking seriously in China and by what metric do you understand their collective opinion and by which criteria do you discount the opinion of other, equally Chinese, persons, who I can guarantee you make up a far larger percentage of the Chinese population, and by what definition of democracy do you understand that this is more democratic?
As for saying the 'Working Groups' are already in the constitution, what do you think that the existing governmental departments were based around? So by that logic, because the old groups are being subverted by new groups run by cadres directly appointed by Xi Jinping rather than the previous situation whereby power was shared broadly and consensus was the word of the day, with a new situation whereby consensus is no longer necessary and Xi Jinping gains further control over the organs of government, therefore it's all part of the wonderful communist constitution which also by the way we shouldn't be bothered about following because that's just liberalism's obsession with legalism. This system was deliberately instituted after the period of Mao where Deng decided no one should have complete control of the executive branch of the state, which is indeed the only branch that matters in China. So yes, Xi Jinping is returning to a centralized power structure that hasn't been seen since the time of Mao, where he decides what will or will not be done with increasingly fewer limits, but that's not authoritarianism it's actually greater democracy, due to socialist magic?
The question is if this was some other nation that didn't call itself socialist and we even removed the western world from the picture and weren't trying to compare this to your idea of horrific liberalism or whatever, would you be saying that this equals more communism? Does the magic word Communist in the party name divorce you from reason and objective analysis?
China at the moment is a situation where someone painted a hammer and sickle onto some fucked up combination of Abu Ghraib and Lehman Brothers and you are walking into the gulags and saying that this is the Right Decision for the Difficult Circumstances of the Time and must be understood through the lens of objective Marxist science.
Also newsflash, Koreans consider their country to be far more corrupt than Western nations as well, but nice petty diversion I guess.
China's legislature is the wealthiest in the world, it dwarfs that of the United States by orders of magnitude, because rather than the American system of Become Wealthy->Think You Know Better Than Others Because You Are Wealthy->Buy A Seat In The Legislature. The Chinese system is, Get Into The Government->Use That Power To Enrich Yourself And Your Family->Use Those Riches To Climb The Ladder->Get Rich Bitch. There are strong reports that the system is literally reaching the point of paying your superior to get a promotion which enables you to collect larger bribes. But apparently it's orientalist to consider this corruption, maybe it's just a new socialist mode of human relationships that just happens to assume the same form of any other kleptocracy. Also as an aside, the glorious People's Liberation Army is thought to be completely unable to fight a war due to this sort of corruption within the military ranks, and Xi Jinping is trying to clean it up frantically, so where the fuck do you get off trying to Newspeak the definition of corruption away into me being an orientalist.
You worry about petty bourgeois opinions but whose opinions are you actually reflecting from among the Chinese consciousness. Since China literally outlaws non-governmental opinion polling what else can we rely on apart from personal experience, please give me a real answer rather than debating the socialist meaning of opinion. The overwhelming evidence is that the Chinese population is focused on materialist gains, and that they are unhappy with corruption, though they're also more than willing to take part in that corruption themselves because they see no point in being 'clean' when everyone else is getting rich as they pilfer the general welfare funds and extract bribes for doing the things they should be doing as part of their job. Again, whose opinions should we be taking seriously in China and by what metric do you understand their collective opinion and by which criteria do you discount the opinion of other, equally Chinese, persons, who I can guarantee you make up a far larger percentage of the Chinese population, and by what definition of democracy do you understand that this is more democratic?
As for saying the 'Working Groups' are already in the constitution, what do you think that the existing governmental departments were based around? So by that logic, because the old groups are being subverted by new groups run by cadres directly appointed by Xi Jinping rather than the previous situation whereby power was shared broadly and consensus was the word of the day, with a new situation whereby consensus is no longer necessary and Xi Jinping gains further control over the organs of government, therefore it's all part of the wonderful communist constitution which also by the way we shouldn't be bothered about following because that's just liberalism's obsession with legalism. This system was deliberately instituted after the period of Mao where Deng decided no one should have complete control of the executive branch of the state, which is indeed the only branch that matters in China. So yes, Xi Jinping is returning to a centralized power structure that hasn't been seen since the time of Mao, where he decides what will or will not be done with increasingly fewer limits, but that's not authoritarianism it's actually greater democracy, due to socialist magic?
The question is if this was some other nation that didn't call itself socialist and we even removed the western world from the picture and weren't trying to compare this to your idea of horrific liberalism or whatever, would you be saying that this equals more communism? Does the magic word Communist in the party name divorce you from reason and objective analysis?
China at the moment is a situation where someone painted a hammer and sickle onto some fucked up combination of Abu Ghraib and Lehman Brothers and you are walking into the gulags and saying that this is the Right Decision for the Difficult Circumstances of the Time and must be understood through the lens of objective Marxist science.
Also newsflash, Koreans consider their country to be far more corrupt than Western nations as well, but nice petty diversion I guess.
Edited by FSAD ()
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
Welcome to, "A moment in the life of Baby Huey!!"
*turns on the TV, people are pulling down a statue*
The Ukrainian people tearing down a statue of Josef Stalin?? Looks like fascism in action! A shame that the people of Ukraine don't understand the policies of Stalin like I do, the best possible thing for them to do would be to dissolve their state and reincorporate into Russia, but unfortunately western media continues to push Ukrainians into their natural state of fascism.
*flips channel, people are erecting a statue*
The Chinese government building a 600 foot tall statue of Confucius from money gained by expropriating peasant land at below market value?? This is unprecedented in human history! The Socialist Chinese government is creating something new here, something never seen before! What's that, looking closer... a sign below the statue, "Please don't shit in front of the statue." In America, corrupt liberal parliamentary government doesn't even attempt to regulate street shitting!!
*turns on the TV, people are pulling down a statue*
The Ukrainian people tearing down a statue of Josef Stalin?? Looks like fascism in action! A shame that the people of Ukraine don't understand the policies of Stalin like I do, the best possible thing for them to do would be to dissolve their state and reincorporate into Russia, but unfortunately western media continues to push Ukrainians into their natural state of fascism.
*flips channel, people are erecting a statue*
The Chinese government building a 600 foot tall statue of Confucius from money gained by expropriating peasant land at below market value?? This is unprecedented in human history! The Socialist Chinese government is creating something new here, something never seen before! What's that, looking closer... a sign below the statue, "Please don't shit in front of the statue." In America, corrupt liberal parliamentary government doesn't even attempt to regulate street shitting!!
Keven
Keven
Post rating:
+++++
Stalin is actually good though. Please debate in good faith.
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
~
That's why Huey has already prepared his write in vote for Josef Dzugashvili. He's shaped it like a check from Publisher's Clearing House in order to infiltrate the local elementary school where votes are cast, gonna bring this crumbling edifice crashing down
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
+
I actually don't think China is socialist, rather state capitalist in Lenin's use of the term (the only one that has meaning), though I do think that emerging market economy crisis will force China to choose to go back on the socialist path or neoliberalize.
The problem with Orientalism is not that it describes something that is not true. The problem is that it describes something that is too true and therefore impossible to imagine about oneself. I brought up Korea because the term 'crony capitalism' became popular when the IMF was trying to break open the economy. Korea became 'corrupt' for applying policies that not only had the west previously supported, but they had applied to themselves in order to develop through protectionism, state backed industrialization, and networks of cronies that created trusts and monopolies. Orientalism is a psychic fantasy in which one projects their own ego onto the other, whether it be sexual appetites, economic corruption, or political 'authoritarianism.'
The question then is not "is China lawless?" but rather "what is it about China's laws that makes the West so afraid?" Clearly China has laws and a constantly evolving culture, the question is what does it say about us that we can only conceive of this as some kind of repetition of the ancient past? Zizek is wrong about many things, but he is correct that America fears that China is more democratic, more efficient, and more capable of handling the 21st century's problems, if we understand this is as a fantasy of the Orientalist and having little relation to reality. Having said that, Chinese elites are the worst Orientalists of all, as their ideology is an attempt to impose idealist conceptions of a 'Chinese essence' and 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' against the objective, material reality of capitalist development and the popular legacy of the cultural revolution.
If we want to subject China to immanent critique and attempt to judge it by its own standards, you are largely correct that most Chinese people probably care mainly about material gains. This is broadly true, though there can be short term exceptions if state ideology is powerful enough. Hitler is an example of material gains being the primary motivation of the state, Nazism was extremely weak until the very end of the war when it had the ability to kill everyone along with itself, while North Korea might be an example of the popularity of the state allowing people to tolerate a long period of poverty.
Basically what I'm saying is whether China is or isn't socialist is a separate question. It is your terminology: culture, lawlessness, corruption, authoritarianism, ideological control - all of these betray the worst kind of Orientalism, that which fears the mirror.
The problem with Orientalism is not that it describes something that is not true. The problem is that it describes something that is too true and therefore impossible to imagine about oneself. I brought up Korea because the term 'crony capitalism' became popular when the IMF was trying to break open the economy. Korea became 'corrupt' for applying policies that not only had the west previously supported, but they had applied to themselves in order to develop through protectionism, state backed industrialization, and networks of cronies that created trusts and monopolies. Orientalism is a psychic fantasy in which one projects their own ego onto the other, whether it be sexual appetites, economic corruption, or political 'authoritarianism.'
The question then is not "is China lawless?" but rather "what is it about China's laws that makes the West so afraid?" Clearly China has laws and a constantly evolving culture, the question is what does it say about us that we can only conceive of this as some kind of repetition of the ancient past? Zizek is wrong about many things, but he is correct that America fears that China is more democratic, more efficient, and more capable of handling the 21st century's problems, if we understand this is as a fantasy of the Orientalist and having little relation to reality. Having said that, Chinese elites are the worst Orientalists of all, as their ideology is an attempt to impose idealist conceptions of a 'Chinese essence' and 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' against the objective, material reality of capitalist development and the popular legacy of the cultural revolution.
If we want to subject China to immanent critique and attempt to judge it by its own standards, you are largely correct that most Chinese people probably care mainly about material gains. This is broadly true, though there can be short term exceptions if state ideology is powerful enough. Hitler is an example of material gains being the primary motivation of the state, Nazism was extremely weak until the very end of the war when it had the ability to kill everyone along with itself, while North Korea might be an example of the popularity of the state allowing people to tolerate a long period of poverty.
Basically what I'm saying is whether China is or isn't socialist is a separate question. It is your terminology: culture, lawlessness, corruption, authoritarianism, ideological control - all of these betray the worst kind of Orientalism, that which fears the mirror.
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
+
This is also why it's hilarious that some 'leftists' use the term "state-capitalism" to describe the USSR, Maoist China, and Cuba. Be sure to then ask 'what is the U.S.?' because the answer is always 'state capitalism'. Then ask 'what was the post-Soviet Russian state?' and the answer will probably be 'state capitalism' though they probably see the trap that's been laid. Ask 'what was the N.E.P.?' and obviously the answer is 'state capitalism.' Finally, ask 'has every self-described socialist country, from Cuba to Vietnam to Mozambique, been in reality 'state capitalist?' and then write their name down so you can shoot them when JDPON comes.
babyhueypnewton
babyhueypnewton
Post rating:
~
IMF officials Michel Camdessus and Stanley Fischer were quick to explain that the afflicted economies had only themselves to blame. Crony capitalism, lack of transparency, accounting procedures not up to international standards, and weak-kneed politicians too quick to spend and too afraid to tax were the problems according to IMF and US Treasury Department officials. The fact that the afflicted economies had been held up as paragons of virtue and IMF/World Bank success stories only a year before, the fact that neoliberalismโs only success story had been the NICs who were now in the tank, and the fact that the IMF and Treasury department story just didnโt fit the facts since the afflicted economies were no more rife with crony capitalism, lack of transparency, and weak-willed politicians than dozens of other economies untouched by the Asian financial crisis, simply did not matter.
...
One of the hallmarks of capitalism is supposed to be that people who make mistakes get fired and replaced by people whose advice turned out to be correct. Instead, the only head to fall has been Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist for the World Bank, who was the lone critical voice within the neoliberal establishment of IMF policies during the East Asian Crisis. In stark contrast, the chief architect of further liberalization in East Asia, counter productive, recession-aggravating conditionality agreements, and blame the victim pontificating, Stanley Fischer, was recently nominated for a promotion from second to top gun at the IMF by US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and President Clinton!
- Robert Hahnel, Let's Review
chickeon
chickeon
chickeon
Post rating:
+
i think this is a valuable dialogue and stuff but i just want to be sure; nobody implied that Western 'democracies' aren't corrupt or are relatively low in corruption right ?because that would be ridiculous
where's the very cool and sexy man Crow at
where's the very cool and sexy man Crow at
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
If you're going to argue that western nations are equally or more corrupt than third world nations then you've moved the word corruption so far from its accepted meaning that there's no point in having a conversation about corruption outside of the one you've already presumably had between yourself and the ghost of Chairman Mao
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
~
I also never used the word lawless to describe China, rather that laws have no meaning in the face of state power. The law can be used as the tool of the state to enforce its will, but the reverse is never true. At the same time the state holds up the concept of 'Rule of Law' which they constantly push forward as important, and which means that all people abide by and uphold the law of the nation as established by the government. Yet the moment those laws pose any sort of inconvenience to the exercise of power, the state will pretend that those laws don't exist. As there are no checks on the power of the government, then what use is touting the Rule of Law?
You're so absorbed with trying to prove that criticism of China is Orientalism that you've basically set the bounds for discussing political movements in a modern nation state without any ability to reference, in your exact words, "culture, lawlessness, corruption, authoritarianism, ideological control" without pushing us into the hoary realm of Orientalism. As you said, the Chinese elite are the worst Orientalists, everyone is an orientalist, and this is an implicitly bad thing, you and a select few are apparently the only ones able to criticize the Chinese without falling into Orientalism. If you've never lived under the corruption of the sort that exists in daily life in China then it's easy to sit back and harp about well Halliburton got no-bid contracts therefore America is equally corrupt and there's no ability to draw a meaningful distinction. This is exactly the same problem you just noted regarding 'state capitalism', if everyone is equally corrupt then it's meaningless. But I apparently can't call China corrupt without betraying my fear of China's rise and the presumed rape of white women that will accompany it?
You're so absorbed with trying to prove that criticism of China is Orientalism that you've basically set the bounds for discussing political movements in a modern nation state without any ability to reference, in your exact words, "culture, lawlessness, corruption, authoritarianism, ideological control" without pushing us into the hoary realm of Orientalism. As you said, the Chinese elite are the worst Orientalists, everyone is an orientalist, and this is an implicitly bad thing, you and a select few are apparently the only ones able to criticize the Chinese without falling into Orientalism. If you've never lived under the corruption of the sort that exists in daily life in China then it's easy to sit back and harp about well Halliburton got no-bid contracts therefore America is equally corrupt and there's no ability to draw a meaningful distinction. This is exactly the same problem you just noted regarding 'state capitalism', if everyone is equally corrupt then it's meaningless. But I apparently can't call China corrupt without betraying my fear of China's rise and the presumed rape of white women that will accompany it?
littlegreenpills
littlegreenpills
Poronto
Post rating:
+
FSAD posted:I also never used the word lawless to describe China, rather that laws have no meaning in the face of state power. The law can be used as the tool of the state to enforce its will, but the reverse is never true. At the same time the state holds up the concept of 'Rule of Law' which they constantly push forward as important, and which means that all people abide by and uphold the law of the nation as established by the government. Yet the moment those laws pose any sort of inconvenience to the exercise of power, the state will pretend that those laws don't exist.
how is this not true of any polity since the beginning of time
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
Blah blah the United States also ignores laws when it's necessary, Chelsea Manning couldn't get her hormone treatment in prison, but again, as you said, if there's no ability to recognize gradations and how they affect the government and society then what's the point of comparing anything? There is essentially nothing less humanistic or rational than your apparent argument that based on the past successes of socialism and communism in successfully running states with a view towards making the lives of their citizens better, that they should prefer a future state of successful affairs which no one has any idea how to realize, versus a system that provides far more comfort and dignity for the average person. The average Chinese person would generally prefer living under the system established by the United States than that of China, who are you to know better than them?
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
I actually started posting that before anyone had even replied because I knew that it would be the first thing for someoen to harp on.
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
+
I just went to the dentist and got a polpotomy. Was that invented by Pol Pot? Any of the resident Orientalists know this one?
orchestra_hit
orchestra_hit
Post rating:
~
a lot of times people in other countries think they want to live in a US-style democracy when they really just want to live in the US
Edited by orchestra_hit ()
littlegreenpills
littlegreenpills
Poronto
Post rating:
~
i think most chinese people would like to be white and rich like the white and rich folks on tv
Keven
Keven
Post rating:
+
I know I would. And hell, I just might pull it off.
Keven
Keven
Post rating:
+
The trajectory of film and tv is a lot like that of smoking, as the 1st world moves towards league of legends and doing dabs of legal weed, content producers shovel their flawed and rejected product at the developing nations.
Urbandale
Urbandale
Occupied Aztlan
Post rating:
~
FSAD posted:If you're going to argue that western nations are equally or more corrupt than third world nations then you've moved the word corruption so far from its accepted meaning that there's no point in having a conversation about corruption outside of the one you've already presumably had between yourself and the ghost of Chairman Mao
just popping in to say that ignoring institutionalized corruption like lobbyists and PACs in favor of systemic but individualized corruption like bribes taken by underpaid functionaries is pretty stupid.
FSAD
FSAD
App Developer/Libertarian/Dad
Post rating:
+
Again, I'm not ignoring it, but if I say that China has both widespread institutionalized and individualized corruption while the United States has only widespread institutionalized corruption then the result is that China as a society is more corrupt, and in fact that corruption tends to affect people on the personal level of daily life much more so than in any Western nation. It's not like Chinese people have to deal with corruption only at the lower level but everything above the personal level is all clean and transparent. Who is arguing there is no corruption in the West? And if no one is saying that, then what are you trying to prove except some kind of false equivalency?
littlegreenpills
littlegreenpills
Poronto
Post rating:
~
FSAD posted:Again, I'm not ignoring it, but if I say that China has both widespread institutionalized and individualized corruption while the United States has only widespread institutionalized corruption then the result is that China as a society is more corrupt, and in fact that corruption tends to affect people on the personal level of daily life much more so than in any Western nation. It's not like Chinese people have to deal with corruption only at the lower level but everything above the personal level is all clean and transparent. Who is arguing there is no corruption in the West? And if no one is saying that, then what are you trying to prove except some kind of false equivalency?
what are some of the forms of corruption in china that you as a regular person have to deal with on a daily basis
cars
cars
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating:
+
this is an excellent time to mention that my edition of Fanshen has the title on the front cover in the same font as the 1960s Star Trek show.
aerdil
aerdil
Post rating:
+
uh i dont know man i feel like the "widespread institutional corruption" in the united states, like what precipitated the mortgage crisis, affected a lot of people on a personal level.
Urbandale
Urbandale
Occupied Aztlan
Post rating:
~
FSAD posted:Again, I'm not ignoring it, but if I say that China has both widespread institutionalized and individualized corruption while the United States has only widespread institutionalized corruption then the result is that China as a society is more corrupt
naw, you need to prove that chinese dual corruption outpaces US institutional corruption first, otherwise your argument is just two things are worse than one thing while ignoring scale. im not sure how one would go attempting to prove this, given the lack of aggregate data from US police civil seizures + bribes to chinese officials (though your position already had this problem), but id bet theres more money floating around the US tbh.
chickeon
chickeon
chickeon
Post rating:
~
There's ungodly amounts of individualized corruption in the US, and Canada and the UK for that matter. maybe somewhat less in western Europe but it's going to be present basically anywhere Capital is. But it's rampant in the US to a point where it saturates the news and permeates pop culture to obfuscate the institutional sort of corruption.
Anyways I myslef wouldn't deny or argue against there being a great deal of individualized corruption in China seeing as the state is always making a big show out of exposing and rooting it out, I don't think it would serve anyone's interest to pretend that it exists.
What would you say about the practicality of a second Cultural Revolution?
Anyways I myslef wouldn't deny or argue against there being a great deal of individualized corruption in China seeing as the state is always making a big show out of exposing and rooting it out, I don't think it would serve anyone's interest to pretend that it exists.
What would you say about the practicality of a second Cultural Revolution?
[account deactivated]
cars
cars
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating:
+
trip report: moving the cover to Fanshen closer to and further away from me & whistling the star trek music. this tactic appears to be working captain