Chinese Economics Thread

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Totally agree! While there should indeed be tax laws to redistribute to a certain extend, there cannot and should not be mob rule. Maoism during CR is akin to using mob rule to bolster one-man rule at the expense of the country, the Party-State institutions, the military, the industry, and education system.
This man inspired a whole nation to revolt, he was elected by "popular vote". At the final analysis he got no personal material wealth at the expense of the country. The CPC moved on the dictatorship of the proletariat following it's program and declarations. Now it's trying to balance the capitalist growth imbalances through "inspiration" of big corporations, to be more "socially fair" and make donations :p No need to be violent.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Breaking Down Hu Xijin’s Challenge to Li Guangman’s ‘dazibao’

by Yawei Liu

September 3, 2021

What is Hu Xijin’s dissent?

Importantly, Hu Xijin does not dispute the facts listed by Li Guangman. What he strongly disagrees with, however, is what these events mean. To Hu, recent actions by the Chinese government and CCP are policies designed to regulate the market, to stop capital from barbaric growth, and to restore social justice and equality. In other words, the goal of these policies is about improving effective governance and gradual social progress— they have nothing to do with a seismic revolution.

Hu’s central argument is that China is politically united with its existing governance mechanisms, which he writes are orderly and efficient. This is, as Hu argues, the very reason that China could sustain a massive trade war and a frontal assault from the US. This is also the very reason that China has successfully contained COVID-19, which has generated so many problems for Western nations. Hu asks why a successful country like China needs to mobilize for a “revolution”? Who will be the targets of this “revolution”? China has undergone and is still undergoing transformation, even critical transformation, because reform is about transformation.

Hu continues in his blog that he works for the CCP and has daily public and private interactions with government officials. He writes that he has never seen or heard anything remotely connected to a beginning of a revolution to usher in a new order and a political campaign designed to correct fundamental flaws in the Chinese system of governance. Furthermore, Hu writes that Li’s blog describes changes in China as revolutionary “as if China is going to bid farewell to the era of reform and opening up and to go for an overthrow of the current order.” This is deeply misleading, seriously erroneous, and cynically populist. This kind of rhetoric has to be stopped.

What does the Li-Hu debate signify?

In both its message and propagation by state media networks, Li Guangman’s blog can be compared to the first dazibao that was posted to a Peking University wall in the early summer of 1966. What we do not know is who is behind the effort to amplify Li’s voice? What is even more intriguing are the circumstances of Hu Xijin’s daring critique of Li Guangman. Hu is an insider with strong knowledge of how the Chinese government approaches propaganda. Either his own conscience has dictated his behavior, or he was encouraged by someone inside the government to challenge Li Guangman— perhaps someone wants him to speak up and test the limitations of acceptable discourse before they speak up themselves? Or, perhaps, insiders want to test the waters of public opinion before another government decision is made?

There is one thing for certain: this debate indicates there is raging debate inside the CCP on the merits of reform and opening up, on where China is today in terms of social and political stability, and about what kind of nation China wants to become.

In terms of U.S.-China relations, the downturn is giving Li Guangman and the like fodder for their diatribe. There are even scholars in China who warn this is Washington’s strategy— that it is using the downturn in US-China relations to break Chinese political unity, as mentioned by Hu, and achieve its goal of containing China once and for all. In any case, those in China who want to see another revolution and overthrow what the nation has accomplished are either ignorant of what the Chinese people truly want or are so blinded by their own ambition that they disregard the pulse of the Chinese people.

Hu Xijin is certainly aware of the huge stakes in this debate. In today’s China, it takes courage to speak out. For this, I commend him.

Yawei Liu is Chief Editor of the U.S.-China Perception Monitor.

Government is allowing this showing of patriotism while tamping down on any speculation of another disaster like those decades ago. The conformist socialist culture of unity of the people has its place in China and will always play a central role in uniting the people but cannot ever be allowed to go too far into ridiculous revolutionary rhetoric that is so emblematic of the Communists of previous generations.

Unfortunately many of the youngest Chinese do not have the experience to know what real proletarian revolution looks like, and how catastrophic it has been for every country in the history of Mankind which has attempted it.

Jews say never again. Well, never again for China.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
whats with the new youtube "educational" channel trend specifically on "Chinese economics collapse"? these videos are getting more and more frequent for some reason, with some half truths mixed with faux logic and blatant misinformation, a lot of people are eating it up. (i believe people would still eat it up with no truth at all in the video tho)
Now Evergrande is their new hot topic about how it will totally collapse China. So they have to milk it as much as possible while at the same time duping their audience so that they watch their 2346th video about China's collapse
 

KenC

Junior Member
Registered Member
All these fears of China being retrogressive with Maoism are just unwarranted IMHO.
Would the leftists want to revert to those days of the 60s and 70s ? Certainty not.
They certainty want to curb the rise of the Capitalist group within China, curbing monopolies to allow fairer competitions and wanting more equitable distribution of wealth. In any country, there is always tension between these two forces. I'm sure the CPC fully recognizes the dilemma and this is where they have the feedback mechanisms. They are pragmatists and not fully fledge ideologues as in the West.
 

Orthan

Senior Member
Bloomberg article about the chinese real estate bubble. It seems that its so big that the chinese government cant even seriously try to take it down.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


What do you think of it? Evergrande problems could be a harbinger of things to come.
 

KenC

Junior Member
Registered Member
Such articles about China collapse from financial disaster is not new. I remember back in the 2000s , there were talk about China collapse from banks defaulting due to massive bad debts, ghost towns etc., but as it turned out the financial disaster happened in US in 2008 and US needed China to help them out in buying treasury bonds. Such opinions are more about wishful thinking and reflect their state of minds rather than reality, as China is a lot more resilient and prudent than what these western pundits assume.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
However the bazooka which woke up the sleeping dragon (CPC) was Jack Ma openly/publically mocking regulators and politicians on their face in that infamous conference (meeting?).

That thing enraged the whole CPC leadership and finally brought the hammer down once and for all. The regulations were already ready or getting finalised but that Jack Ma speech catalysed the whole thing.
I don't think Jack Ma was "mocking regulators", he simply pointed out they were behind the times and needed to catch up. My understanding is that he was not talking about China as such, but pretty much the regulatory systems everywhere. Today it is obvious that this was actually the Communist Party's view, and it was not strange at all for him to be expressing this, since he's a party member, after all.

The Western media makes it out that the government (or Xi Jinping himself) went after Alibaba as a sort of revenge, but as a Party member, and one intimately involved with the internet sector, he would be involved in discussions preparing such regulatory work.se

As to the other Ma (Tencent) I don't directly know whether he's in the Party or not, but he sounds like he is. In 2019, in a panel discussion regarding some aspects of the internet business, I heard Ma Huateng express views on private data which are completely consistent with what we're seeing today: the user (consumer) is the rightful owner of their own data which is collected by internet companies. The consequence of this is that they should not be able to profit from your private data.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I don't think Jack Ma was "mocking regulators", he simply pointed out they were behind the times and needed to catch up. My understanding is that he was not talking about China as such, but pretty much the regulatory systems everywhere. Today it is obvious that this was actually the Communist Party's view, and it was not strange at all for him to be expressing this, since he's a party member, after all.

The Western media makes it out that the government (or Xi Jinping himself) went after Alibaba as a sort of revenge, but as a Party member, and one intimately involved with the internet sector, he would be involved in discussions preparing such regulatory work.se

As to the other Ma (Tencent) I don't directly know whether he's in the Party or not, but he sounds like he is. In 2019, in a panel discussion regarding some aspects of the internet business, I heard Ma Huateng express views on private data which are completely consistent with what we're seeing today: the user (consumer) is the rightful owner of their own data which is collected by internet companies. The consequence of this is that they should not be able to profit from your private data.

Your business can’t make it big in China without the tacit approval of the CCP. Personally I think the crack down on Jack Ma is too disproportionately harsh.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I'd like someone to point out a substantive difference between Li and Hu's positions, because I missed the part in Li's article where he called on the masses to burn down office buildings while waving their Little Red Books.
Bloomberg article about the chinese real estate bubble. It seems that its so big that the chinese government cant even seriously try to take it down.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


What do you think of it? Evergrande problems could be a harbinger of things to come.
We think you need to respond to the previous challenges you've received for your trolling. Instead, you keep ducking them.

I personally think you're going to be blue-balled for the next 10 years waiting for China's collapse like you were for the last 10. Does that answer your question?
What do YOU think? Are you a robot?
Answer the question, @Orthan.
 
Top