(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Grapplejack posted:So this free trade agreement cements China as being super duper communist right Lenin was negotiating trade agreements with the West as early as 1918.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
The ultimate German agent...
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Lenin was negotiating trade agreements with the West as early as 1918.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:One thing the American hawks like Pompeo keep trying to rewrite the history is that the US "open up to China in the late 70s and helped her join the WTO for the well being of the Chinese people." No idiot stop eating up your own lies. You did it to pull China away from the Soviet bloc to win the geopolitical competition. Same thing China is doing with the developing world and you are not doing right now. I'd argue that it was going to happen regardless once the soviets got involved heavily in vietnam Ardennes posted:Lenin was negotiating trade agreements with the West as early as 1918. You know there's a major difference between a trade agreement, which almost all states have and do with each other, and a free trade agreement, which is designed specifically for ease of capital exploitation of peripheral states
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Lenin was negotiating trade agreements with the West as early as 1918. c’mon
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You know there's a major difference between a trade agreement, which almost all states have and do with each other, and a free trade agreement, which is designed specifically for ease of capital exploitation of peripheral states From China's perspective they are still a "peripheral state" but they are using that exploitation to their advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
there is nothing more socialist than eliminating barriers to the free flow of private capital
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:there is nothing more socialist than eliminating barriers to the free flow of private capital Capital is capital as long as it is useful. Leninism (and post-Leninism) never had an ideological problem with trade, including free trade agreements. Mao even during the heart of the Cultural Revolution was actually expanding trade with Western Europe. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 00:09 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Capital is capital as long as it is useful. Leninism (and post-Leninism) never had an ideological problem with trade, including free trade agreements. Mao even during the heart of the Cultural Revolution was actually expanding trade with Western Europe. capital in the hands of capitalists is called something isnt it? i dont think its socialism...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:capital in the hands of capitalists is called something isnt it? i dont think its socialism... Like I said, Leninism is about the practicality of development. It is also why Lenin even early on had very intense criticism (justifiably or not). If the answer if "a socialist state shouldn't trade without capitalist states since capital will end up in the hands of capitalists"...you probably need to pencil out an alternative. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 00:34 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:capital in the hands of capitalists is called something isnt it? i dont think its socialism... Selling them the rope to hang themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Like I said, Leninism is about the practicality of development. It is also why Lenin even early on had very intense criticism (justifiably or not). i have no issue with a socialist state trading with capitalist states out of necessity. the problem here is no socialist states are involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Honestly I know that it gets said a lot, but you really do need to read the five year plans before you start calling out plot holes. Things get cut between the five year plans and the reality release, but quite honestly I am very happy with how things have been adapted so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Like I said, Leninism is about the practicality of development. It is also why Lenin even early on had very intense criticism (justifiably or not). THE JUCHE IS LUCHE
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:i have no issue with a socialist state trading with capitalist states out of necessity. the problem here is no socialist states are involved. Okay thats fine, but lets not pretend this is an aberration of what has occurred beforehand ("everything is state capitalist etc etc").
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:capital in the hands of capitalists is called something isnt it? i dont think its socialism... keep following that logic path to the light of anprim
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Okay thats fine, but lets not pretend this is an aberration of what has occurred beforehand. it is an aberration from your examples as those were socialist states making trade deals to advance their centrally planned socialist economies, and china has a capitalist economy and this trade deal is to facilitate their own capitalists investing in other countries. Top City Homo posted:keep following that logic path to the light of anprim 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:And he introduced the NEP a few years after.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
ofc this free trade treaty is not a bad thing, it is mostly a geopolitical maneuver by china to pull much of Asia closer to it and reduce American imperial influence and will mostly materially benefit the countries involved. but i dont understand why the need to pretend it is socialist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:it is an aberration from your examples as those were socialist states making trade deals to advance their centrally planned socialist economies, and china has a capitalist economy and this trade deal is to facilitate their own capitalists investing in other countries. Central planning was a methodological tool, not a key element of Leninism. Also, Xi has been using the authority of the power of the state over domestic private companies far more openly recently. If you want to argue about "state capitalism" that's fine, but it is clear how power works in China is very different than the United States. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 01:11 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:From China's perspective they are still a "peripheral state" but they are using that exploitation to their advantage. who is China peripheral to wrt the RCEP Sheng-Ji Yang posted:ofc this free trade treaty is not a bad thing, it is mostly a geopolitical maneuver by china to pull much of Asia closer to it and reduce American imperial influence and will mostly materially benefit the countries involved. but i dont understand why the need to pretend it is socialist. will it mostly materially benefit the countries involved or will it mostly materially benefit capitalists
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
indigi posted:who is China peripheral to wrt the RCEP The idea is the RCEP is a way to splinter "core" countries away from guess who.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
You all need to stop bashing each other over the head with "Lenin did it therefore it's socialist". Early days of USSR aren't really an example of anything more than practical necessity. Central planning wasn't established until after the GOELRO plan was underway. The peasant farmers and plenty of industrial enterprises were left to their own devices because the state had no means of controlling them or providing them with the necessary materials to keep operating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Central planning was a methodological tool, not a key element of Leninism. It is not state capitalism, it is free market capitalism with slightly more (but declining) ability for state intervention than in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
I dont think you can claim that the state party in china has declining ability to intervene when they can still disappear pretty big people and have them show up a year later saying that they are corrupt and thanking the party for letting them live. And the lesson they took from covid was that they should have MORE state owned industries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
In the Progressive Era, America used the authority of the state over private companies (trust-busting) much more than they do now. It was still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:I dont think you can claim that the state party in china has declining ability to intervene when they can still disappear pretty big people and have them show up a year later saying that they are corrupt and thanking the party for letting them live. And the lesson they took from covid was that they should have MORE state owned industries. the ability to arrest & punish fairly a capitalist who commits a crime is certainly better than the US, where that is almost impossible, but its not socialism. i was talking more about the Chinese states direct control of the economy, which has consistently declined for 40 years now and has not stopped under Xi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:It is not state capitalism, it is free market capitalism with slightly more (but declining) ability for state intervention than in the US. but they have a red flag
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:but they have a red flag Xi just brushed aside China’s second richest man without any noticeable opposition. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 02:12 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Xi just brushed aside China’s second richest man without any noticeable opposition. lol Jack Ma suspending his IPO is truly a victory of socialism. of course, a socialism where IPOs happen and a billionaire capitalist privately owns the largest company and stock markets exists seems a bit weird but eh,
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
Donald Trump calling Jeff Bezos "Jeff Bozo" was a stunning victory for the american working class & the State against capital.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Donald Trump calling Jeff Bezos "Jeff Bozo" was a stunning victory for the american working class & the State against capital. Tim Apple
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
The Amazon Washington Post!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:31 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Shen-Ji Yang posted:lol Jack Ma suspending his IPO is truly a victory of socialism. of course, a socialism where IPOs happen and a billionaire capitalist privately owns the largest company and stock markets exists seems a bit weird but eh, I wonder why he “suspended his ipo”.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:there is nothing more socialist than eliminating barriers to the free flow of private capital
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
sincx posted:remember, it's not socialism, it's socialism with Chinese characteristics Sinopunk 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Deng Xiaoping: Remember, no consumerism
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
I just want to get a word in you guys's economic model argument. I haven't read Das Kapital myself but from what I understand, central planning was not a Karl Marx idea, it was a russian interpretation of socialism economy. Therefore central planning was no more authentic communist to the Chinese than whatever they came up themselves by winging it with black cats and white cats. As far as the current Chinese economic model, you don't need to call it "State Capitalism", because it's distinctive enough from any other country. You can call it "CPP Capitalism" or Dengonomic or whatever roll off the tongue better. In fact the State Capitalism branding was from the international capital (The Economists Magazine)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:I just want to get a word in you guys's economic model argument. I haven't read Das Kapital myself but from what I understand, central planning was not a Karl Marx idea, it was a russian interpretation of socialism economy. Therefore central planning was no more authentic communist to the Chinese than whatever they came up themselves by winging it with black cats and white cats. It's true that Marx was not so prescriptive about what socialism would specifically look like. stephenthinkpad posted:As far as the current Chinese economic model, you don't need to call it "State Capitalism", because it's distinctive enough from any other country. You can call it "CPP Capitalism" or Dengonomic or whatever roll off the tongue better. In fact the State Capitalism branding was from the international capital (The Economists Magazine) I've long maintained that "State Capitalism" is a red herring that was invented by capitalists themselves to set-up a No True Scotsman fallacy: every socialist state that failed is socialist, so socialism is a failure and is bad and we shouldn't emulate it, and every socialist state that's successful is ACTUALLY practicing State Capitalism, so it's not REALLY socialism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 03:43
|
|