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.
And I'm saying that you have clearly not dedicated much time to thinking about or studying the issue. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I'm not very supportive of Dengism, but if you listen to Dengists and Mensheviks they will tell you that China still has a communist party in power (as does Vietnam and as does Laos) whereas the former USSR has a capitalist proto-fascist in government. Only time will tell who's really right, and whether china shifts to a less market-socialism society and more towards a democratic centrally planned economy in the hands of the workers and the state.
I'm not saying China isn't a country, I'm just saying it's hotly debated whether or not it should be called west Taiwan. Only time will tell whether the CCP admits defeat and hands over control in line with their one China policy.
Man, making shit up is fun.
Do show me where Marx said that the path to communism is eliminating private property and the ability to accrue capital and then bringing it back again.
From Wikipedia article on Mensheviks: (you've been talking to someone else in the comments)
Mensheviks came to be associated with the position that a bourgeois-democratic revolution and period of capitalism would need to occur before the conditions for a socialist revolution emerged.
So yes, mate, there are literal historical figures of communism debating this exact same issue that you find so laughable, it's literally the raison d'etre of the word Bolshevism. There is no specific "Marx passage" as if it was the bible, where it says "in case some fella called Mao organizes a socialist revolution in a peasant agrarian society, pls pull it back to capitalism first, and then go to socialism once it's capitalist, ok?" If you generally read Marx, you can see how he puts socialism as the necessary and logical end of capitalism, as something inevitable that will happen because capitalism will bring forward the material conditions for the revolution. But despite that, Marx also was a highly politically involved individual, who pushed forward momentously the socialist movement in Europe together with Engels.
Marx isn't a gospel that you're supposed to be able to chant and have undying faith for, it's an analysis of reality that you can agree or disagree with, which explains the existence of different flavours of communism such as menshevism and bolshevism or such as Maoism and Dengism, which can be explained by the material and historical conditions leading up to those moments. Marx himself said that Marxism has to be constantly interpreting the reality of the moment and critically adapting everything. So if you're looking for a direct quote from Marx about Dengism or Menshevism, I'm not here to provide that, I'm here to tell you that the definition you consider stupid has been hotly debated for a hundred fucking years, so maybe it's not so stupid.
Mensheviks came to be associated with the position that a bourgeois-democratic revolution and period of capitalism would need to occur before the conditions for a socialist revolution emerged.
And yet they never said you would go from a position of socialism where the earning of capital was eliminated to a pretty much entirely capitalist country and then somehow reach communism.
Because that makes no sense.
And you and everyone else arguing for this are ignoring that.
And yet they never said you would go from a position of socialism where the earning of capital was eliminated to a pretty much entirely capitalist country and then somehow reach communism.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is just taking cues from the popular sport of ping-pong.
I'm honestly waiting for something like that. It's so fucking weird to think that dawn has to keep getting darker for the sun to rise.
A few more rounds of Great Leaps Forward followed by ultracapitalism will definitely result in our dictatorship of the proletariat almost being ready to dissolve. We just need to run the cycle a few times until our noble and selfless elites decide it's time to surrender power.
My brother in Christ, Mensheviks and Dengists were against the consolidation of centralised socialist economy before the historical consolidation of capital in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the difference being that Menshevism died off and Dengism ended up taking the lead after Maoism. The restoration of capital is simply a consequence of Dengism taking over AFTER Maoism, not because Dengists believed there should be first Maoism and then Dengism.
Cool. How many billionaires does China get to have before they get rid of them and go to communism? Because it currently stands at over 800 according to my searching. When will their billions be distributed to the masses rather than to their children?
For the last time, I'm not the ultimate supporter of themselves Chinese model of Communism, now that I've shown you that your position stems from being uneducated about socialism, its meaning, and its history, you resort to "how many gazillionaires" because you're not trying to have a civilised discussion. You have a preconceived notion that "China isn't communism", which is fine, so do I, but when confronted with the discrepancies within the communist movement and how there are legitimate arguments to call it socialist and on the way to communism, you just spout your initial position again with stronger words. I'll tell you what I said at the beginning: I don't care whether it's communist or not, but you saying "hurr durr no socialism if billionaires" is a shitty argument from ignorance.
Accuse me of whatever you like. The fact is that China is becoming ever-more capitalist and suggesting that is the path to communism is silly unless you can explain things like how to distribute a severely unequal amount of wealth.
In his theory of Historical Materialism. Mao and the later Gang of Four succeeded in broadly eliminating private property, but had done so without developing the Means of Production adequately, resulting in economic stagnation. The people were poor, they had tried to leapfrog development to Communism in an idealist, Utopian manner, which was a rejection of the Historical Materialist idea that the next Mode of Production emerges from the previous.
Communism requires a certain level of industrial development that the PRC did not have, and for that reason the Cultural Revolution was in many ways highly damaging.
Would you have had the PRC uphold the Gang of Four's dogmatic, anti-Marxist line simply because China had largely abolished Private Property? Is it better for the proletarist to be poor under Socialism, or rich under Capitalism?
In his theory of Historical Materialism.
Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don't see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.
Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you're here in bad faith.
Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don't see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.
Marx hadn't lived in a time where there was a society that tried to jump to Communism immediately without developing the Means of Production first, so the closest we can get is his critique of Anarchism. Critique of the Gotha Programme also provides perspective on the transition to Communism:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
However, I encourage you to read Marx for yourself. You shouldn't "trust" my interpretation, you should dive into Marxism if you wish to critique Marxists along Marxist lines. You can critique as a non-Marxist, that's perfectly valid, but trying to critique as a Marxist without a solid understanding of Marxism isn't good-faith in my opinion.
Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you're here in bad faith.
I am not trying to say that you're making a value judgement. My argument is that, as a Marxist-Leninist that has read no fewer than 2 dozen books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Parenti, Politzer, and other Marxist writers, it is evident to me that your understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism is lacking, and that clouds your judgement when you critique using Marxist analysis.
Don't worry, ML theorists like Stalin take precedence over Marx, like how the New Testament takes precedence over the Old. It's basic theology.
Oh believe me, I know. They don't care about what Marx actually said.
Frankly, Marx strikes me more as an anarchist than a communist, at least insofar as those labels are used today. I suspect he'd find tankies repellent.
The end goal of Marxism is Communism, which is anarchist by a strict definition. There are quibbles between traditional Marxists and anarchists on how to get there - with Marxists typically taking a "We need to take over the state first" approach and anarchists going for "Dismantling/bypassing the state is literally step 1" approach. Tankies, of course, mock 'anarkiddies' without the slightest hint of what the end state of Communism is, because they love slobbering on authoritarian boots.
Marx railed against Anarchists for his entire life, what gives you the impression that he would be an Anarchist today?
I won't be able to explain this very well, but I think I'd frame it as an Overton Window thing. Marx railed against anarchists because tankies didn't exist yet. If he were around today (and still held his 19th c. views) I suspect that on the spectrum of leftism, he'd find himself closer to anarchists than to tankies, i.e. his dislike of centralized authoritarianism would far outweigh his comparatively minor beefs with anarchists.
Marx railed against Anarchists because he was in favor of centralization, and believed in Scientific Socialism, rather than Utopian. He believed Socialism to be a stage in development of class society, one that emerges from Capitalism, and not something that can be established outright simply by coming up with a model and spontaneously adopting it. Marx didn't base his views on any such "Overton Window," he would find the concept of that ridiculous.
Why do you say Marx disliked "centralized authoritarianism?" He advocated for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ie a democratic, centralized state, that would wither from a tool to oppress and suppress the bourgeoisie into an administration of things as global Communism is achieved. Critique of the Gotha Programme makes this expressly clear, Marx was in favor of centralization and against decentralization and Anarchism.
As for "authoritarianism," he and Engels were often accused of it, to the point that Engels wrote about the issues with said slander in On Authority.
That isn't my reading of him at all. He seems to me to advocate for "bottom-up" structures rather than the opposite, as tankies do. You just alluded to it yourself with his vision of an emergent system rather than something designed and imposed. The latter is what current-day communists believe, and as you just said, that doesn't align with Marx.
I also didn't say he based his views on an Overton Window at all. I said current-day communists have distorted communism so far beyond anything Marx would recognize that the Overton Window on what is considered communism has shifted far towards the authoritarian side.
Can you elaborate? What "bottom-up" structures did he advocate for, and how, mechanically, do they differ from what modern Communists advocate for?
When I say emerge, I mean it literally. Capitalism emerged from within feudalism with the advent of the steam engine, which allowed for industrialization and mass competition. When Marx advocates for Socialism, he does so on the basis of the Proletariat wresting control from the bourgeoisie via revolution, and maintaining absolute control via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, just as the bourgeoisie and proletariat together wrested control from the Monarchies.
What have you read from Marx that gives you an alternate impression? Where are you getting the idea that Marx was in favor of decentralization over centralization, when he says the direct opposite clear as day in Critique of the Gotha Programme?
Can you elaborate? What “bottom-up” structures did he advocate for, and how, mechanically, do they differ from what modern Communists advocate for?
He constantly frames things vis-a-vis the freedom of workers and their having input in their government. Does that sound like China to you, or Cambodia under the Khmer?
When Marx advocates for Socialism, he does so on the basis of the Proletariat wresting control from the bourgeoisie via revolution, and maintaining absolute control via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, just as the bourgeoisie and proletariat together wrested control from the Monarchies.
Sure, but what he didn't advocate for is for a new form of aristocracy to emerge from within workers' ranks. I think this was Bakunin, not Marx, but the dangers of "labour aristocracy" were already known at the time.
What have you read from Marx that gives you an alternate impression? Where are you getting the idea that Marx was in favor of decentralization over centralization, when he says the direct opposite clear as day in Critique of the Gotha Programme?
I've read David Harvey's synopsis of Capital (because life is too short to read the whole thing), Gotha, and of course the Manifesto. I'm actually puzzled that you see Gotha as advocating for authoritarianism. He talks about the eradication of class and about how people should not be "ruled". Both of those things are endemic to current-day communism. I just can't imagine that Marx would look at the way the CCP operates and think that was an accurate reflection of his personal politics.