CPI has 650k members, CPI(M) has 100k members.
CPC is the largest Communist Party in the world.
CPC has almost 100 million members. Are they China campists, Marxist-Leninists, or both?
I’d argue that of the international Communist movement, the majority of party members are Chinese.
That was literally made and supported by Moffin’, who was, if you trust Zeke Roa (an admin on Getchan) a board developer on Leftypol.
The serious issue I see right now is more a push by “parts of the left” to cancel China using the “anti-campist” line.
Campist is a difficult word, given its association with board collapse on Leftypol.
Moreover, you make it difficult for me to try to argue for a more balanced and critical take on China (i.e, avoiding over-idealization that will lead to disapointment on encountering realities), because this aligns with the general Western anti-China take too much.
I support a common-sense level of paranoia. As long as you don’t do something illegal or too threatening, you’re fine.
I don’t think people here are on the verge of crossing the line, whereas on Leftypol you had former posts discussing guns, as well as NAFO glowtrap posts discussing drone terrorism.
TBH, I just think it’s best to assume everything is a glowop and try to focus on useful praxis and useful theory. Even if things aren’t glowops now, if you get enough visibility, security agencies will come after you.
It’s three fabs. Intel, meanwhile, is falling apart.
The important thing, imo, is that the US doesn’t achieve full chip independence before 2030, which allows a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue (i.e, Chinese customs blockade redirecting Taiwanese shipping and passenger traffic to China). I don’t see American reshoring settling the issue early, even though Intel is likely to get automated fabs up by 2028.
I’m probably going to repost a finished version soon, but I’ll leave this comment.
I’m basically trying to import/export socialism with Chinese characteristics to Western contexts.
The only real difference is that we generally do not have control, and are insurgents until we control enough of the economy. And adventurism around the 33% scale becomes viable: i.e, aggressive means to destabilize competitors, like forced unionization, industrial espionage, and financial warfare (hope you liked your CDS in 2008!)
I’ve never said anything about having the right people in charge; this post is about a change in strategy and methods.
I also don’t think I’ve jettisoned the idea of class struggle because the idea of using industrial cooperatives that are also party-owned means that such enterprises are essentially proletarian and proletarian controlled in character, but it moves class struggle from the social and political environment to the economic marketplace.
Destroy Porky’s market share. Kill bourgeois profits. Different mindset, different mechanisms.
I’d like to put out a fuller response, but I’d rather have fully posted the OP.
I think Hazan put out a similar idea for how he’d want to build the ACP, but I think he’s oversimplified things and hasn’t identified the flaws, even at a minimum stage. I think the ACP, in general, is not qualified for his business plan of having party cells operate as enterprises, and it’ll rapidly go down the sink for that reason.
As for your criticism concerning capitalist opposition, the simple way to do it is simply to publicly list the POE / industrial cooperatives (but not the party itself) once the business is viable, taking care to maintain worker / party control, but allow the bourgeoisie to buy stakes.
It’s Dengist insofar as that’s how Deng and China succeeded; capitalists will sell you the rope that will hang them, if they think it’ll make them a quick buck. If, say, Blackrock and/or Goldman own a 30% stake, you essentially have cover from elements of the capitalist system, because they want to protect their investment.
As an addendum, part of the idea is simply to have a lopsided incentives structure (in at least some of the firms within Red Zaibatsu) such that the business HAS to be Marxist in order to function. To cut to the chase, the level of labor discipline and pay is such that you won’t work at a Red Zaibatsu-held firm unless you were ideologically committed, and if these firms somehow lose their Marxist character, it simply no longer makes sense to work at such a company.
It’s what I’d bring up as to how Huawei works (Huawei is abusive insofar as its prospective long-term employees are expected to sign a strivers’ contract pledging dedication to the firm, which includes being assignable across the planet as the company sees fit, and working extremely long hours. Note that Huawei is still a worker’s cooperative with profit sharing).
The ideological commitment to socialism, in my view, is the competitive advantage that allows “vanguard-type” (not all Party-held firms are vanguard-type) firms to defeat their capitalist competitors, and if you destroy the system of worker and party ownership while capitalists are invested, well, you just forced Goldman / Blackrock to take a huge haircut on their investment, because the company is no longer competitive. That protects the Party-owned economy from the wider capitalist system.
Less outrage, more shades of Diem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem , who persecuted Buddhists.
Zelenskyy’s approval rating, likewise, is starting to go down the tubes.
Iirc my math was for 3x overbuilding on solar and using massive battery banks, although the 4 cents per kwh figure assumes 1.5x overbuilding and enough batteries to capture all of a summer day’s generation.
Fission and solar are actually enemies because the extreme intermittency of solar overloads the grid in the summer, and provides no energy at night. Coal and natgas have fast generation spoolup, whereas nuclear takes too long, hence solar forces nuclear off the grid.
Ultimately, solar is here. At present prices, in China, at least, panels with battery can compete with natgas and coal for total generation.
With further reduction in battery prices (40 USD is the marginal cost of batteries), and multi-junction carbon or carbon silicon, we probably can get solar + batt to completely replace all existing fossil fuels, as well as limit fission and fusion to baseload or strategically crucial power supplies.
Sounds like they got kicked out and decided to write a kvetch column. Beijing seems more interested in using social media to present a view to the world, instead of a hostile Western press.
Solar + batt in China is currently cheaper than coal and natgas.
Solar is a 100% mature technology that promises to provide further cost savings over existing technologies, and has reasonable odds of reaching the 1 cent per kWh point, where solar is competitive with fusion.
Fission can’t scale to that point; the main point of fission is that it can produce reactors for warships and submarines, as well as uranium for fission, boosted fission, and thermonuclear weapons.
Nukes generate waste, have small meltdown odds (thus medium or larger meltdown odds the more you deploy them), and also the technology chain can be modified for uranium enrichment.
Solar and wind are also popular because their generation can be decentralized, but this is less of a concern for MLs who favor planning.
If you want to go and ask me where I think wiser action might have saved lives, it’s ironically NOT because I think the students could have been talked out of it. They couldn’t because of firebrands and fifth-columnists like Chai Ling.
It was because the Zhao Ziyang government thought that the students were sincere; that they could have been talked out of it, and Zhao Ziyang, himself, came down to the students and cried in a desperate attempt to get them to peacefully end their demonstrations, to no avail.
If Zhongnanhai had accurately known that the democracy movement was a CIA-front, that the US embassy was acting to arm the proletarian protests against the PLA, Zhongnanhai could have acted more swiftly to forcefully nix the protests, such that lethal force would not have been required, or required in such large degrees.
That is what I mean when I say “Tiananmen is a truly unfortunate incident that has been exaggerated and distorted by the Western press, and the loss of life on both sides is truly regrettable.” It’s a dogwhistle, onlookers can be dragged into the “myths of Tiananmen” research, including by Western journalists who were on the scene, as far as they are willing, but I do not support a hardcore approach of straight denialism.
The best part, imo, is that the unreliable liberals were shown for who they were, and purged, but tbh, this would likely not have been possible if the protests had not gotten out of control.
In retrospect, I’d say Tiananmen Square in 1989 was a positive for China for the very reason that political liberalization was kicked brutally off the table. We see clearly the results of the alternative in modern Russia, with an out-of-control oligarch class.
Screenshot it if you can find results on Baidu. I see some ancillary results discussing how production etc was disrupted by 6-4, but nothing discussing the incident itself, although I still need to go through the State Council logs.
Basically, in parts of the left-wing community, there’s a tendency to overidolize China, when China itself admits that Mao was 30% wrong, and considers itself a developing country that is still searching for solutions.
The problem is, if you become completely divorced from reality, you impede your capability for praxis, and set yourself up for disappointment and alienation from the movement (“they lied to me!”) if you step foot here and stay for extended periods of time.
I’d consider unsustainable “ultra” beliefs wrecker behavior by hostile forces, when there is already a lot to admire in China, just as there are things to reasonably gripe about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-process_people's_democracy
Wikipedia can’t be cited, but you can always steal its sources.
Whole process people’s democracy
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202403/03/content_WS65e47e91c6d0868f4e8e494c.html https://archive.is/FNP6x#selection-423.0-426.0
IIRC, the Chinese were exploring similar processes to the Singaporeans, who also have a one-party state (except theirs is a cross between social democracy and fascism, as opposed to a cross between classic AES and social democracy). This employs the use of polling, surveys, and focus groups to constantly investigate what the people want, and put it into consideration for policy decisions.
Another buzz word in China is the mass line, so if you don’t have time or can’t extend the scope to compare and contrast different countries’ definitions of democracy, you can simply explore how the notion of democracy has evolved in China from Sun Yatsen (Sun Yixian) to Xi Jinping, and how China, mostly, lives up to its own definition of democracy.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm
As the other poster says, define democracy.
Exploring Communist, read: statist, notions of what democracy is as well as what Western notions of democracy is, especially in the context of multiculturalism is at least an interesting angle.
The United States is democratic by its own definition, and China isn’t democratic by American definitions. China is democratic by its own definition, and the United States isn’t democratic by Chinese definitions (look up bourgeois democracy).
This is a more interesting angle than simply arguing that China is a democracy by Western definitions, and if you have time, you can also consider Iran.
Removed by mod