Trading late stage capitalism for mid stage capitalism and a pre-existing merger of state and corporate power doesn’t sound like a permanent fix. Also, deposing a strongman in favor a system that has reestablished it’s leadership as a strongman is not an improvement.
China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the working class is in control of the state. They don’t have a “strongman,” just because Xi gets re-elected. Stability is good if public support is high.
They have a Strongman because Xi went to great efforts to sideline people or policies that served as a check to his power. Something that would have been unthinkable in China at any point after Mao and before Xi.
Just years of reading. That you bring up the anti-corruption campaign means you’re at least familiar with allegations that Xi unevenly applied the campaign against his political opponents. As a side not, I’ll say the anti-corruption campaigns in China are definitely popular and also one clear situation where improvements in computer technology made a major advance in society and peoples quality of life. Corruption of low level officials was hard to root out when the people would be making complaints to other corrupt low level officials and risking retaliation in the process. Computer technology helped bypass that.
You never gave any. I’ve done years of reading too, and have a different conclusion, so if you aren’t going to offer any evidence then there’s no reason for me to go along with what you’re saying.
I think you underestimate the term “improvement”. Lossing two fingers instead of three is an improvement. 8inches from the ledge is better than 4inches from the ledge even if either measure isn’t even one whole step. If in never going to see best then I’ll take any better I can get.
A permanently better world is possible so why settle for a temporary better situation with little hope for further improvement? Why insist people have to lose fingers when no one losing fingers is achievable and not at all far fetched?
That’s like insinuating that I refuse to lose weight because I can’t lose 60lbs today. I’m literally saying I will take any movement what so ever if it means movement.
China isn’t turning into a “hybrid of communism and capitalism,” it’s socialist, ie transitioning between capitalism and communism. It isn’t possible to sustain this transitional phase indefinitely, as production grows and develops so too does socialization, which forces higher stages of socialism.
Trading late stage capitalism for mid stage capitalism and a pre-existing merger of state and corporate power doesn’t sound like a permanent fix. Also, deposing a strongman in favor a system that has reestablished it’s leadership as a strongman is not an improvement.
China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the working class is in control of the state. They don’t have a “strongman,” just because Xi gets re-elected. Stability is good if public support is high.
They have a Strongman because Xi went to great efforts to sideline people or policies that served as a check to his power. Something that would have been unthinkable in China at any point after Mao and before Xi.
Do you have an example? The anti-corruption campaigns are immensely popular among the public in China, and they support the government.
Just years of reading. That you bring up the anti-corruption campaign means you’re at least familiar with allegations that Xi unevenly applied the campaign against his political opponents. As a side not, I’ll say the anti-corruption campaigns in China are definitely popular and also one clear situation where improvements in computer technology made a major advance in society and peoples quality of life. Corruption of low level officials was hard to root out when the people would be making complaints to other corrupt low level officials and risking retaliation in the process. Computer technology helped bypass that.
So I still don’t see any evidence of Xi being a “strongman,” but instead an extremely popular and influential leader.
You’re whole persona is pushing the party line and pushing back against any dissent. I didn’t expect you to see any evidence.
“Uhh well you’re a commie, I don’t need to present any evidence because you wouldn’t listen anyway!”
Fantastically lazy copium, do better
You never gave any. I’ve done years of reading too, and have a different conclusion, so if you aren’t going to offer any evidence then there’s no reason for me to go along with what you’re saying.
I think you underestimate the term “improvement”. Lossing two fingers instead of three is an improvement. 8inches from the ledge is better than 4inches from the ledge even if either measure isn’t even one whole step. If in never going to see best then I’ll take any better I can get.
Yeah but any invasion probably pushes half of the country over the edge before the war would be over.
I wouldn’t wanna risk death and destruction for a mere potential 4" further from the edge.
A permanently better world is possible so why settle for a temporary better situation with little hope for further improvement? Why insist people have to lose fingers when no one losing fingers is achievable and not at all far fetched?
“Unless you’re creating an instant utopia you should not change to the status quo”
Because they’re moving there? No one said there should be no more progress?
That’s like insinuating that I refuse to lose weight because I can’t lose 60lbs today. I’m literally saying I will take any movement what so ever if it means movement.
It’s more like offering someone a weight loss pill that will work for a couple months and then make you gain more weight than you started with.
See here for a possible solution to turning a global China into a sustainable hybrid of communism and capitalism: https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/new-monarchy/
Gross
China isn’t turning into a “hybrid of communism and capitalism,” it’s socialist, ie transitioning between capitalism and communism. It isn’t possible to sustain this transitional phase indefinitely, as production grows and develops so too does socialization, which forces higher stages of socialism.