change the thread title to "China: A Modern Social-Imperialist Power, Some Experts Say"
change the thread title to "china is the best fuck all the rest"
china: myth or reality

swampman posted:

this thread is still embarrassing

No... U

For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
the repeated dismissal of such critique as purely the idiosyncrasy of first world chauvinists, when the subject in question is the perspective of actively revolutionary movements of the semifeudal peripheral nations, always strikes me as desperately defensive
also lenin in this case is explicitly talking about the conditions of active, military warfare between nations. whatever your stance on the question of the prc's general character, the designs on china by amerikan empire are at this point the predatory strangling of weak nations in "imperialist peace" lenin discusses in the opening theses

the exposures he's talking about are also clearly in context the direct publication of internal state information, not some blanket dismissal of critique as you seem to be implying
i think "active, military warfare", to the extent that such a thing can realistically manifest at all today, is absolutely on the table for a relatively wide sector of the amerikan ruling class and dismissing it out of hand is dishonest. either way, the capacity of core imperial states to make war by other means has dramatically amplified since the time lenin was writing and should be taken seriously given the changed context. this is just thug lessons' "boots on the ground" argument about syria from 2015 or whenever redux
it's absolutely on the table, i have never at any point expressed that the descent into active imperialist military struggle against china is impossible. i don't know why you're accusing me of dishonesty when you're eliding what i actually said

the point is that this is simply not what the current conditions are, by any feasible interpretation. lenin explicitly describes the non-militaristic execution of imperialist goals that we're experiencing now in those very theses. a balance of power in which the agreements of the arch-imperialist powers allows the predatory strangling of the weaker nations

your invocation of "war by other means" is useless in this context -- lenin explicitly and avowedly followed clausewitz, in his direct interpretation war is a continuation of policy by other means. war by other means against the weak nations is the norm of imperialist peace.

i'm clearly not making anything like lessons' argument, the existence of active military mobilisation clearly existed in syria, this isn't some shifting arbitrary principle
but again this also completely irrelevant to the context of what lenin is actually talking about. i agree that no party, western or otherwise, should be publishing the internal policy documents and communications of the prc & its financiers which are not presented for public consumption.

that's what lenin is explicitly discussing in the words preceding swampman's excerpt he conveniently left out, and it's not what anyone here or in any of the relevant revolutionary parties is doing
that's fine i guess but strikes me as bizarrely legalistic. is the distinction really that meaningful? it seems to me that the particulars depend pretty heavily on context, which has shifted dramatically in the intervening century, and that precise details of which precise actions lenin is condoning or not (leaking internal documents, for example) seems like missing the forest for the trees. even more since it's not like anyone here is part of anything like the type of group that lenin was directing, so it strikes me as especially strange to take detailed cues about which actions are "ok" at direct face value as opposed to gauging the goals he was writing for and the context he was writing them in, and taking general cues as opposed to specific, direct instructions. this is all to say that i don't find the specific case of secret documents or whatever to be particularly relevant or meaningful here

Edited by c_man ()

it isn't relevant or meaningful here which is why it was stupid for swampman to post it as if it was a relevant rebuke to anyone!!

lenin simply wasn't arguing whatever is being implied he was, and if you want to argue that your interpretation is in the spirit of lenin's intention then you have to actually argue that instead of posting an out of context quote from an intellectual authority as if it's an own on everyone

you can make whatever extrapolations about lenin's intention you like but none of them are captured in the sole fragment that was posted
I apologize for my incendiary post.
hi whats going on itt
I think we are figuring out "What is Trotskyism"
ok but after that can somebody help me with my email

Really phenomenal analysis of US-China trade and the economic impetus behind “trade war” rhetoric from the US. I’ll highlight one bit but definitely read all of it

What our results show is that the United States, as a world hegemonic power, is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its advantage and come out on top of this competition, and therefore to bear all the implications of free trade, for which it once defined the rules to its advantage. China has indeed succeeded in significantly reducing the importance of this unequal exchange, with its disadvantage in the transfer of wealth gradually diminishing: the proportion of this unfavorable transfer in the Chinese added value fell from -3.7 percent to -0.9 percent between 1995 and 2014. As a matter of fact, China had to trade fifty hours of Chinese labor for one hour of U.S. labor in 1995, but only seven in 2014.

On top of this, the sectoral analyses that can be drawn from the application of our second method of calculating unequal exchange are very enlightening. Although forty-three out of the fifty-five sectors of activity (78 percent of them) considered by our study between 1995 and 2014 highlight transfers of value directed from China to the United States (the most significant being textile, clothing, and leather-goods manufacturing, as well as the manufacturing of furniture and other supplies), twelve other sectors are at the origin of transfers of values going in the opposite direction—that is, operating to the detriment of the United States. These latter activities include: the manufacturing of computer, electronic, and optical products (with $6.9 billion transferred from the United States to China in 2014); agriculture and farming; hunting and hunting-related activities ($3.1 billion); the manufacturing of motor vehicles and trailer and semi-trailer services ($1.1 billion); and the manufacturing of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations ($422 million, still calculated for 2014).


pogfan1996 posted:



October’s MR edition is all about China and is all extremely good. Not all of the articles are available for free yet, if anyone wants any of them posted in the pdf forum let me know. Some get unpaywalled on the 19th and 26th if you don’t pay your aristobucks to John Bellamy Foster




i also have a MR sub if anyone wants to DM me for an article from this month or from the archives