Chinese Economics Thread


horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
I must admit, the part I like the most about the Marxism is the class struggle.

LOL! I cannot get enough of that. But that is a good policy to limit political discussions in this forum. Once people go on a bender about class struggle, then look out!

:D
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
That is why this China discussion in the forum in general is so fascinating.

After a while, Chinese realize, the most interesting thing is China!

What is going on now in China, is unknown, but it is working.

What is working? Communism. No, capitalism. Who cares! The Orange Cat catches mice. I think we should care, it is interesting.

China today, we cannot refer to any textbook. Classical Marxism had the proletariat and the bourgeois. One criticism against Classical Marxism, there was no middle class, as the middle class only rose later. Would Marx have thought differently if there was a middle class in his time? The middle class in America fervently rejects Marxism.

Today in China, it has kind of moved beyond that too. China has moved beyond the classical concepts IMHO.

One key difference between the west and China, in the west capital is above the government. In China, the government is still above capital. The CCP makes the policy, and not lobby backed by rich corporations.

Then in the practical day to day sense of running this, it just seems so weird and different. The Communist government of China, collects tax revenue, which is capital too, from enterprises earning profits in the free market. Talk about ironies of ironies. (Next, that tax revenue is recirculated back into the free market, perpetuating this process, along with solid economic growth).

(Logically, that would mean the communists are supporting the capitalist.)

That is why Gordan Chang thought is so persuasive. These contradictions should destroy China according to western sensibilities, exemplify of Gordan Chang though. But these contradictions are what propels China forward.

China is getting the better of America because it is practicing capitalism better, but this is a communist state, where we still read officials doing the self-criticism, sort like still in the GPCR days.

What will happen next? Who knows. The experiment of life and China continues.

:D

Honestly fuck Marxism, fuck capitalism. Fuck all these Western economic and social concepts.

China did just fine for thousands of years, building civilizations when the Germanic tribes were considered barbarians by the Latins and Semites.

China is struggling right now with identifying why it’s so successful. The Marxists say aha we are finally following the ideology the right way. Which is hilarious considering how many billionaires there are. The capitalists also say it’s due to the free market, which is hilarious considering how 1/4th of global Human wealth is tied up with the Chinese government and is being used to build everything from bridges to semiconductors.

China has distorted Western concepts so much it cannot be said to follow ANY of these Western models anymore.

China has created the best political-economic system that exists on Earth today, and its distinctly Chinese. The real wonder is why so many people, even in the CCP, are so desperate to tie it to some White guys ramblings 200 years ago (that hasn’t even shown any proof of ever working).

I’m happy Chinese youth are starting to find themselves again, not as Westerners (like Koreans or Singaporeans) or White worshippers (like Japanese or Indians or Filipinos), but as the descendants of a proud landed people, which have existed as a distinct people for thousands of years, never absorbed into another polity or people.
 
Last edited:

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
@manqiangrexue Enough with your mental gymnastics, scripta manent and i strongly believe that you are well aware what we are saying. I don't care if you are in denial.

@sinophilia Do not justify greed by biology. Do you know any greed genes that we don't know? In that way you justify the opression of European colonialism by nature, not that they were greedy and racist [email protected] European speaking here. In case you don't know, you fall in the trap of Social Darwinism, the ideological mother of Nazism. Go google it. Human society is not only biology. It's biology plus conscioussness.
I recently read a collection of letters of Amerigo Vespucci , outlining his findings during his explorations in Americas and he often said that he met a lot communities up to 3000 thousand ppl living collectively without any sense of ownership. It was about 1500 ac. You can say they were kinda primitive...But compare to whom? The European Christian stricken colonialists?

Generally my intention is not to enforce any "stamps" or "signs" to the people of China. PRC flag and the insignia of CPC and the PLA is better proof than any word in this forum. I strongly advise to take a look at this forum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from mainland which is a very active forum where members of CPC, provincial governments, academics, scientists, journalists and ordinary people discuss the political and not only, situation in PRC.

PS. Marxism definately on-topic in Chinese economic thread
 

lcompocida

Junior Member
Registered Member
Correct I am not impress with Japanese cities because the land is so expensive they crowd the cities with building upon building. Green space is rare I guess the land is too valuable for green space. People are always in hurry. They never smile everybody look so serious. I can understand it if you have to commute 1 to 2 hr each way in cramp subway, I will get grumpy too. Even back then coffee is $3 and fruit is so expensive. But the countryside is beautiful. My relative apartment is so cramp and basic yet so expensive. Everybody work their *&^% off 8 pm office light are still on. Definitely not my favorite place.

yes Beijing is grand with broad boulevard, Plaza, a lot of park and historic site, open market. at that time there are still one story dwelling where people mingle on the street . More human I would say
Japanese cities are much nicer IMO. Perhaps a difference in taste, because I like smaller streets/walkability.

Beijing is like the least pleasant 1st tier city in China to me simply because of how unwalkable it is (and lack of human scale)
 

lcompocida

Junior Member
Registered Member
The growth of billionaires is a problem for two main reasons:

1. Such concentration of wealth is a very inefficient allocation of national resources. The hyper-wealthy simply do not spend enough of their money to turn the wheels of society, and this is one of the major reasons why western economies and societies have been sputtering these past decades: under neoliberal policies the billionaire class grows ever larger and more obscenely wealthy, but that wealth is unproductive. There are only so many luxury yachts one can buy. The golden age of western societies corresponded with periods of very high taxation and redistribution of wealth driving demand from the middle class.
2. It is a political challenge to the authority of the CCP, and more broadly to any form of government that seeks to employ rational intelligence in service of a broadly construed national interest. Wealth is power, and those with wealth will seek to use that wealth to advance their own interests which do not necessarily correspond with those of broader society. See the Wall Street plot to overthrow the American government in the 1920s.
Billionaires inherently do not produce any value on their own. At best, they simply get lucky in allocating capital and resources, which is a vestigial function at best, which can probably be replaced.

For those who think otherwise, I suggest you read "Capital" by Karl Marx. This is different from his manifesto; "Capital" is where he astutely analyzes and describes observations of the intricate workings of capitalism.
 
@manqiangrexue Enough with your mental gymnastics, scripta manent and i strongly believe that you are well aware what we are saying. I don't care if you are in denial.
You don't get to say when I am done or what is enough. Calling others "mental gynmastics" while failing on all accounts to refute their points will not win you a debate. I write point-to-point whenever I refute you or anyone else while you write short lines with no intellectual content in response because I know exactly why and where you are wrong while you just helplessly hate what I write. I am aware of what you are saying and it is demonstrably incorrect as shown in all civilizations around the world. You sound like you were "educated" in a cult borne out of jealous hatred for those who have more than you in an impoverished state. None of what you say on economics or your off topic ideological rants make any sense as they pertain to real world operations.
@sinophilia Do not justify greed by biology. Do you know any greed genes that we don't know?
That's a foolish thing to say. If you need a gene to link something to biology and instinct, then what is the gene for survival instinct? What is the gene responsible for homosexuality and heterosexuality?
In that way you justify the opression of European colonialism by nature, not that they were greedy and racist [email protected] European speaking here. In case you don't know, you fall in the trap of Social Darwinism, the ideological mother of Nazism. Go google it. Human society is not only biology. It's biology plus conscioussness.
Falling into the trap of Social Darwinism is being poor in a society and unable to find yourself opportunities to dig out of it. Countries that follow your model of society and economics fall into the trap of international Darwinism by creating and using an economic system that is broken and unable to create an environment for development causing their nation to be internationally irrelevant.
I recently read a collection of letters of Amerigo Vespucci , outlining his findings during his explorations in Americas and he often said that he met a lot communities up to 3000 thousand ppl living collectively without any sense of ownership. It was about 1500 ac. You can say they were kinda primitive...But compare to whom? The European Christian stricken colonialists?
Yeah, those are the people who never had the drive to innovate and move forward, thus they ended up getting taken over or killed by civilizations that knew how to employ greed and social structure as a driving force for development.
Billionaires inherently do not produce any value on their own.
Leadership, vision, and direction are all value, and of the highest kind. It is low-level thinking to believe that one has to produce tangible goods in order to contribute value.
At best, they simply get lucky in allocating capital and resources, which is a vestigial function at best, which can probably be replaced.
They got "lucky" in that they were in a situation that fostered their mental exploration and had the intellect to capitalize. You cannot discredit success as luck or it would be just luck that all of us are alive today. It's pointless. Self-made billionaires change the world with their vision even if they don't handle every detail by themselves. If you take away the drive to become rich in a society, you make it the responsibility of the collective to advance society and when something is everyone's responsibility, it becomes no one's responsibility.
For those who think otherwise, I suggest you read "Capital" by Karl Marx. This is different from his manifesto; "Capital" is where he astutely analyzes and describes observations of the intricate workings of capitalism.
I prefer to get my information from primary data collection rather than someone's opinion and theory. The fact is that there is no successful economy in the world that does not produce billionaires or calls them "vestigial, to be replaced." Every blossoming and powerful state in the world has billionaires sprouting like saplings in a forest and their mega-industries compete on the global stage. They are the giants of national development and drivers of the economy (even if they need help sometimes). An economy without the rich will never advance beyond "pleasant small town" if it doesn't directly degenerate into abject poverty.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
This is an ahistorical and non-materialist understanding of human motivation. We've existed for about 200k years. Human society had no social classes for most of this existence. Only in the most recent 5 to 10 thousand years have social classes and hierarchy emerged. Greed being so emphasized and promoted is a direct result of capitalist social relations, it reinforces the rule of the capitalist class. "The dominant ideology of the era, is the ideology of the ruling class". What you wrote today is absurd as a catholic priest writing 1000 years ago that obeying the Church and the God is Man's motivation and the key to a prosperous society.


@2handedswordsman
@sinophilia
@manqiangrexue

This paragraph on social class and hierarchy is factually wrong.

For example, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. See below.
That means males higher up in the hierarchy were more *successful* at reproducing, whilst *unsuccessful* males died childless.

So males have to compete in whatever hierarchy exists or to setup new hierarchies.
That drives *greed* in accumulating resources and being socially liked or respected.
Remember that famine and starvation were previously common.

In the animal world with monkeys, we can also see the effect of social class and hierarchy on reproduction.

So what can we conclude?

Social class and hierarchy is not a modern phenomenon of the last 10000 years.
This has been part of our society for millions of years, back to the hunter-gatherer days and before

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

voyager1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Leadership, vision, and direction are all value, and of the highest kind. It is low-level thinking to believe that one has to produce tangible goods in order to contribute value.
Agreed. IMO, leadership is everything on an organisation. People can brag about STEM graduates and numbers of engineers but what matters is the people who are going to lead them.

Capitalism strength of allocating capital efficiently is unparalleled on human's history.

The only case where a single (non-leader) person who changed the world dramatically (from what I know, there are others of course) is Einstein, and he is not even a valid example because this person was more of an alien than human anyways... IMO, the most important person of the 20th century.

So yes, capitalists and billionaire are very important. They drive innovation and efficiency, however they must be regularly reminded (prison) who is the real boss because they always try to corrupt the government
 

In4ser

Junior Member
@2handedswordsman
@sinophilia
@manqiangrexue

This paragraph on social class and hierarchy is factually wrong.

For example, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. See below.
That means males higher up in the hierarchy were more *successful* at reproducing, whilst *unsuccessful* males died childless.

So males have to compete in whatever hierarchy exists or to setup new hierarchies.
That drives *greed* in accumulating resources and being socially liked or respected.
Remember that famine and starvation were previously common.

In the animal world with monkeys, we can also see the effect of social class and hierarchy on reproduction.

So what can we conclude?

Social class and hierarchy is not a modern phenomenon of the last 10000 years.
This has been part of our society for millions of years, back to the hunter-gatherer days and before

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Since men also have an X chromosome, would that explain why women have twice as much DNA?

Not that I doubt that hypergamy is an inherent part of sociobiology. The fact is that women are can give birth but men cannot that is why they look for a mate that can provide and protect while they're pregnant or nursing which typically corollate with status and power. Men on the other hand birth children so they must try impregnate as many females as possible, typically preferring those who have physical indicators of fertile and good health (i.e. wide hips, large breasts, symmetrical face)
 

Bellum_Romanum

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bear in mind many here grew up in English speaking countries. Some were bullied and tormented growing up, and therefore would have a natural propensity to be wary of their tormentors.

Still, I think compared to literally every military forum there is, this forum is extremely moderate - without the rife fantasies that abound. Now there may be that one or two who post sensationalist content, but I would say the moderation as well as the self-discipline of forum posters themselves, especially those who were already tormented in childhood, is commendable. Godwin's Law paraphrased states that every military forum will most certainly devolve into ethnic slurring occasionally.

Actually I want to talk about how the CCP managed to rein in Chinese nationalism, if Chinese nationalism is even comparatively rampant to begin with. After Ladakh, after all the incidents in the South China Sea and East China Sea, they managed to moderate the ultranationalists online.
The western critics along with the myriad of fire breathing morons in India to the Philippines should thank their lucky stars that China isn't a Demoncrazy because it is then you can bet your bottom RMB that China would have been more militaristic and aggressive against those countries in light of those countries war like posturing. The fact that CPC is able to reign in the impulses of the public's lust for revenge or vengeance must be commended and supported. The day China becomes a Democracy is the day most people around the world will come to regret this I am sure of.
 

Top