Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Chinese economist Zhu Hengpeng disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported. He reportedly made comments on China's sluggish economy.
A top economist has joined the growing list of China's elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.
CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China's cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a "body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership."
According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China's sluggish economy and criticizing Xi's leadership in a private group on WeChat.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I would like to see sources claiming state ownership has meaningfully increased over time, as the increased disparity in wealth seems counter intuitive to that claim.
Wikipedia has a lot of western-friendly reporting on the increase in SOE's in quantity and control. Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.
Source for forced labor in China.
Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.
What numbers do you speak of that magically determine how imperialist a nation is?
I assumed you were familiar with Marxist theory, I was not referencing the idea of Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution or anything. Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.
Source?
As above with the SOEs.
Soo if the state "owns" the majority of the businesses, yet wealth disparity is growing at breakneck speeds, and the workers still don't have the same protections as some place as dystopic as America...... What does that say? Something isn't adding up here.
Either the government is purposely creating a bourgeois class on purpose.... Or the meaning of ownership is inherently different than what you are implying.
Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances. The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn't at "breakneck speeds," you're going to have to describe what that entails. Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng's statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.
You could make the same argument about American bourgeois.
No, I could not, because the American Bourgeoisie controls the state entirely.
And what has that ownership meant for the people who "own the means of production"? What influence does the average worker in China have that surpasses the level of influence of a worker in Detroit? It seems that ownership just enriches the bourgeois with ties to the government now.
Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there's even workplace democracy. Simply saying "it seems as though xyz" and gesturing isn't an argument.
Which is just another barrier lifted that you say precludes them from actually transitioning to a socialized economy.
Yes, it's a contradiction that requires careful planning.
Is that worker really worker ownership....? One would think that you may increase your own working conditions or pay if you collectively owned the factory you worked at.
How exactly do the workers own the productivity when theres still a management class that capitalizes on the work you produce at the factory you "own"?
Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management "class?"
Right...... But my point was there's not an ideological difference between Marx and Engles as you implied in your statement.
I did not. My statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.
Additionally, disparity rising is perfectly in line with state ownership increasing, the private sector has rising disparity and the overall wealth is increasing.
So you're saying state ownership is a response to increased disparity, yet the increase of state ownership hasn't been effective at controlling the disparity.
Thanks for linking, though it does reference Adrian Zenz, a fascist that claims to be sent from God to punish China. No, I am not exaggerating.
An ad hominem? I see this response a lot about anything having to do with the uyghur population. Even if some of the information referenced was gathered by a fascist, that doesn't mean the information itself is flawed.
The haber process was invented by a literal Nazi and we still utilize it to produce nitrogen. Whatever his motivations, the information he gathered has all been verified by reputable journalists to originate from internal part communications or publicly released information.
Imperialism for Marxists is specifically referring to the process of Financial and Industrial Capital being exported to other countries for hyper-exploitation for super-profits.
You don't speak for all Marxist, and Marxist don't get to redefine terminology to exclude themselves from valid criticism. Even if everyone accepted this definition of imperialism..... What do you call it when you violently expand your territorial holdings with ethno national intent?
What do we call it when they transfer entire nationalities to places like Kazakhstan to extract the wealth to support the Slavic population? It's a complete cop out to think that redefining a term to muddy the waters is meaningful despite the end results being tragically similar.
Workers do have protections, much better than Americans in many instances.
Source?
The private sector disparity is rising as happens with Capital accumulation. It also isn't at "breakneck speeds," you're going to have to describe what that entails.
The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France's 32%.
Similarly, the wealth share of the top 10% of the population reached 67%, close to the U.S.’s 72% and higher than France’s 50%.
Finally, the bourgeoisie in China exists purely alongside private development, you can read Xi and Deng's statements. Foreign Capital was brought in to rapidly industrialize, which has factually happened.
Then why is wealth disparity still growing? If SOE have nationalized the majority of production, how is the disparity continue to grow?
Well, it's because SOE are still profit driven...... A nationalized business that still has profit motive isnt inherently different from private organization, especially considering that most of these SOE still have a significant amount of shares being publicly traded.
How is creating wealth for the state and share holders different from creating wealth for a capitalist and share holders for a workers perspective. There still an inherent motivation to maximize profits at the expense of their own workers.
Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power, there's even workplace democracy. Simply saying "it seems as though xyz" and gesturing isn't an argument.
Simply stating there are "Large safety nets, large public infrastructure projects, rapidly improving real purchasing power," isn't an argument. Especially considering there's widely available reports of workplaces ignoring these guilines without retort. On top of that nearly a third of their workforce lacks the protections outlines by the state as they are migrant workers who dont work full time for a single employer.
As far as real estate purchasing power...... I think we both know the extent of their issues within the real estate market.
I don't really have any criticisms about the majority of their large infrastructure projects, that's an area I think theyre ahead of the rest of the world, however id hardly say that's a byproduct of "workers owning the means of production". I'd say that's more a byproduct of a more centralized government .
Real wages are rising. Additionally, what on Earth is a management "class?"
Yes, real wages are rising. But is that a product of industrialization or socialism? Every nation that industrializes sees a rise in wages, that's not inherent to workers seizing the means of production. What's strange is that real wages and disparity are rising in eerily similar patterns as western nations.
what on Earth is a management "class?"
Are you being purposely obtuse, or just can't make the leap in deduction? What do you call a class of people whos job is to represent capitalist in the actual workplace? People whom don't participate in ownership, but work on behalf of the owners to maximize their profits at the behest of the capitalist?
Just because people don't utilize the same internalized diction accepted in your particular political ideology, doesn't mean the information isn't valid. That's just asking for discourse based purely on semantic reasoning.
statement was that Marx was not a hypocrite for befriending Engels, a factory owner, not that they had different views.
Right, but you you said it in reference to class reductionism.... Which doesn't really make sense as there wasn't an established stratified class consciousness at the time.
I honestly don't have a problem with Communism, I think Marx was brilliant and dialectical materialism is probably one of the most important ideas of the millennium. Im just not as optimistic about the contemporary implementations of it, and I think it's important to point out the internal contradictions of past and current states for future attempts.
I constantly see people talking about the importance of addressing internal contradictions, however when anyone points out something like rising disparity or soe having profit motive, I tend to just get knee jerk reactions that are usually based in logical fallacy.
I think you and most Marxist who reflexively defend the contemporary CCP from valid criticism would benefit from a different perspective from someone once very engaged in the party. This isn't a liberal perspective but someone who is upset at the liberalization of the modern CCP.
From Victory To Defeat: China's Socialist Road and Capitalist Reversal
by Pao-yu Ching
Listen, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but this is an extremely lengthy conversation where each minor paragraph could be the focus of a single conversation, and the information conveyed would be much better. I'm not going to disrespect you and accuse you of gish-galloping. If you want to focus on a particular topic, I am okay to continue, you can pick one strand and develop it into a sizeable argument and we can discuss from there, but as it stands there is no way to do justice to any of these topics in one cohesive lemmy comment thread.
I read your comment, you have points worthy of responding to. I'm not dismissing that, and I don't want this comment to be interpreted as such, I just wanted to give you the respect of explaining why I would rather focus on one topic at a time, or disengage altogether. Lemmy isn't the right format for such a convo.
Have a good day if you decide you don't want to continue, I appreciate your time.
Fair enough, however I would like to point out that my responses have been direct responses prompted by questions and statements originated by you and the person you were originally responding to.
But I agree that we may benefit from narrowing our topic to a more specific field of discussion. I would be interested in knowing how you feel a profit driven SOE is inherently different from a private company.
In my opinion so long as the company's structural hierarchy and it's inherent purpose remains the same or similar, there's not really going to be a meaningful difference in how the workers are treated. For example, don't really see how the workers have seized any more of the means of production than a worker for a company that offers stock options.
There's still just as much opportunity and motivation for exploiting workers. There's still an inherent profit motive that spurs the worst aspects of capitalism. Even if we propose that there could be less destructive competition due to the states monopoly of production, the fact that these SOE are publicly traded still means there's a competition of capital acquisition. These SOE still have to make sure they invest a significant amount of their excess production value back into the organization to ensure their stock increases in value next year.
Thank you for your time, it's pleasant knowing you can still get into the nitty and gritty with someone you don't 100% see eye to eye with, and not have it break down to name calling. Cheers.
First off, thanks for bearing with me. This is a good question!
But I agree that we may benefit from narrowing our topic to a more specific field of discussion. I would be interested in knowing how you feel a profit driven SOE is inherently different from a private company.
The framing of this question is important. Are we evaluating effectiveness? Loyalty to Marxism itself? Simply looking for points of divergence? I'll assume you are more interested in the benefits of SOEs, and whether or not they are loyal to the Marxist idea of Socialism, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Since I am assuming we are evaluating from a Marxist perspective, it truly is important to apply Dialectical Materialism. One of the pillars of DiaMat is that any analysis that doesn't see the entirety of the system, and purely compares stationary snapshots of entities, is not Dialectical analysis but mechanical.
Within the context of the PRC, SOEs are guided by the CPC, which practices central planning as can be made to work with the rest of the CPCs planning, while private companies in Capitalist countries are the ones lobbying the State for lucrative projects of their own. The fact that SOEs are profit driven does not mean that they are guided by Bourgeois interests. It's a measure similar to the NEP.
Private companies within the PRC as compared to SOEs obviously see less direct influence and guiding than SOEs do, but similarly exist under the thumb of the PRC, who allows them to act in their own interests as long as they fulfill their role in rapidly building up the productive forces, which we can see is a role that, to this point, has helped dramatically compared to the era of Mao and the Gang of Four, which saw much slower development.
In my opinion so long as the company's structural hierarchy and it's inherent purpose remains the same or similar, there's not really going to be a meaningful difference in how the workers are treated. For example, don't really see how the workers have seized any more of the means of production than a worker for a company that offers stock options.
This really depends on outside factors, again analyzing the context within which these entities exist. In SOEs and Private Companies within the PRC there are elements of Workplace Democracy, as I showed prior, but the idea that business entities are perfectly democratic within the PRC is false, which is why I haven't attempted to make such a point. Assuming the CPC is in fact a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (and we must do so for this argument to not spiral into endless discussions again, we can absolutely revisit this as its own argument if you wish), then this is an example of a Proletarian managed market economy, which is different from Social Democracy where the State acts in the interest of the Bourgeoisie. Given that the CPC regularly punishes their domestic bourgeoisie and the CPC itself has a 90%+ approval rate among the people, we can at least see that the CPC appears to be acting and managing for the benefit of society as a whole, and not for their bourgoeis class.
There's still just as much opportunity and motivation for exploiting workers. There's still an inherent profit motive that spurs the worst aspects of capitalism. Even if we propose that there could be less destructive competition due to the states monopoly of production, the fact that these SOE are publicly traded still means there's a competition of capital acquisition. These SOE still have to make sure they invest a significant amount of their excess production value back into the organization to ensure their stock increases in value next year.
You are correctly identifying that there is a contradiction at play. The benefits of the market economy are in rapidly developing the productive forces and educating the working masses in how to manage and run production. This is where Historical Materialism comes in, the CPC can't beam information into everyone's brains and mind control them. Instead, market forces result in syndicates and monopolization of Capital, which is dominated and manipulated by the CPC. As the markets develop themselves, they increasingly make themselves easier to directly manage and operate from above. Imagine a million competing factories in earlier Capitalism, and compare it to the era of monopoly Capitalism where a dozen companies practice their own planning, then imagine there is an entity pulling the strings, letting them grow, then seizing them in proportion to their growth.
Thank you for your time, it's pleasant knowing you can still get into the nitty and gritty with someone you don't 100% see eye to eye with, and not have it break down to name calling. Cheers.
I try to treat those who treat me with respect with respect in kind. Cheers!
The framing of this question is important. Are we evaluating effectiveness? Loyalty to Marxism itself? Simply looking for points of divergence? I'll assume you are more interested in the benefits of SOEs, and whether or not they are loyal to the Marxist idea of Socialism, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I would say it's important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it's supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.
The fact that SOEs are profit driven does not mean that they are guided by Bourgeois interests.
I don't know if it means they're automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it's an SOE it's immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.
Assuming the CPC is in fact a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (and we must do so for this argument to not spiral into endless discussions again, we can absolutely revisit this as its own argument if you wish), then this is an example of a Proletarian managed market economy, which is different from Social Democracy where the State acts in the interest of the Bourgeoisie.
Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn't a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.
You are correctly identifying that there is a contradiction at play. The benefits of the market economy are in rapidly developing the productive forces and educating the working masses in how to manage and run production. This is where Historical Materialism comes in, the CPC can't beam information into everyone's brains and mind control them. Instead, market forces result in syndicates and monopolization of Capital, which is dominated and manipulated by the CPC. As the markets develop themselves, they increasingly make themselves easier to directly manage and operate from above. Imagine a million competing factories in earlier Capitalism, and compare it to the era of monopoly Capitalism where a dozen companies practice their own planning, then imagine there is an entity pulling the strings, letting them grow, then seizing them in proportion to their growth.
I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it's still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn't mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.
If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.
I'm not an anarchist or anything and don't agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you're interested Murray Bookchin's analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.
I try to treat those who treat me with respect with respect in kind.
An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.
I would say it's important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it's supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.
Sure, sounds reasonable.
I don't know if it means they're automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it's an SOE it's immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.
Correct, there is a contradiction at play, and a risk. We do not appear to see this playing against the CPC pruning and managing a Socialist Market economy though, at least not yet.
Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn't a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.
Again, I had to. Analyzing the CPC as a DotP would be a conversation in and of itself. If you disagree, we can discuss that point, but the limitations at play means we must make the assumption for the rest of the analysis. It isn't perfect, but I can't write a book, here.
I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it's still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn't mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.
Hierarchy isn't the problem, class control is. Hierarchy is a tool. Creating Capital is absolutely important for the PRC, the lack of it under the Gang of Four led to struggles. The CPC controls and carefully manages and prunes the economy as it grows, and absorbs more as it socializes more of its economy as it ripens, so to speak.
If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.
This is where the Marxist Theory of the State comes in. If the economy is fully socialized, then it isn't competing with itself, and is being planned by the people for the benefit of all. Class antagonisms no longer exist, and the state transitions, as Engels describes, to an administration of things, rather than a policing of people. It won't be Anarchist, but it will be on the way to Communism (the state can't fully wither away until global socialism is achieved).
I'm not an anarchist or anything and don't agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you're interested Murray Bookchin's analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.
I'm aware of the Anarchist critique of Hierarchy, I just don't see it as the primary issue. Socialism isn't a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on the status quo, and Communism an improvement on it.
An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.
You too!