Comments by "GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies14" (@guywholikesthesnarkies1435) on "Geopolitical Economy Report"
channel.
-
369
-
189
-
152
-
149
-
127
-
120
-
111
-
102
-
90
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
58
-
56
-
53
-
51
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
Related context to Ben's main topic in the video: In Xinjiang, China operates a strategic international dry port and a special economic zone in the Khorgos City just right next to the southeastern border of Kazakhstan. This little border town has grown into a modern, high rise city which houses hundreds of Chinese and foreign enterprises investing in diverse economic fields from processing, manufacturing, hi-tech industry and services.
Furthermore, the presence of industrial parks in this city also benefits bilateral cooperation between China and Kazakhstan significantly because Kazakhstan has opened and operated several manufacturing plants and other companies in the economic zone, for quite a while. Just in October 2023 alone, both China and Kazakhstan had inaugurated the first phase construction of a brand new industrial park on the Kazakhstan side of the border, which covers a total area of 1,000 ha, is costed at around $692 millions and will be expected to create 2,000 jobs for the residents living in proximity to the new industrial area.
Now, you can try to draw the correlation with the recent news about the big German companies BASF and VW being threatened by the US with sanctions if they don't stop the operation of their plants in Xinjiang.
32
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
The reason why many people across the wide spectrum of political alignments still misunderstand China's socio-economic model these days is because the corporate interest holders in the West don't want everyone to owing up to the truth, that China's *still* adhering to the Marxism-Leninism (ML) and continuing its socialist construction efforts. The notion that China's a capitalist country is a misconception over a unique concept that deserves a nuanced, proper holistic comprehension by itself.
For the record, China didn't simply revert back into capitalism altogether by the time Deng Xiaoping ushered in the Reform and Opening Up policy. Instead, China had made a sound decision to refrain from its then-communalistic socio-economic system derived from the collectivism and economic autarky adopted in the USSR, which was originally meant to be a decisive strategy to face and overcome the rise of f' 'ism in the Western Europe.
To put it simply, what Deng Xiaoping did was for China to make a return to its *original* socio-economic plan as implemented following the victory of the Chinese communist revolution in 1949. Which is to adopt a form of state-capitalism identical to the former New Economic Policy, a.k.a. NEP, in the USSR during Lenin era. With the hope that China could follow the "scientific" approach to socialist construction based on proper theoretical application of the ML tenets: Dialectical and Historical Materialism, into public policy in a rigorous and legal way. Or as they put it in their own words, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
And China has continued to prove this time after time. China's well-integrated into the global market, but is also still on the correct path for its own socialist construction, simultaneously. This is because China has followed the so-called "scientific socialism" tradition in its policy-making process of formulating and applying the Marxist theoretical basis into practical public policy based on the present "material condition", to put it in a Marxist term. Therefore, the current mixed economy of China is actually still in-line with ML.
Marxist scholar Cheng Enfu, in his book "China's Economic Dialectic", has outlined a practical chart table for the course of socialism development in China as envisioned by the Central Govt officially, which can be sum up as the following phase: Pre-capitalist natural economic system -> Free competition stage of capitalism -> State monopoly stage of capitalism -> Primary stage of socialism -> Intermediate stage of socialism -> Advanced stage of socialism or true communism. The "NEP" phase takes place in the period from the state monopoly capitalism to the primary stage of socialism.
As for the current official goal of the socialist construction as continually reiterated by the CPC, it's to achieve a modern socialist society, common prosperity and an advance into the intermediate stage of socialism by 2050. Which would be the proper transitional period from the previous productive market-based mixed economic system to a more communistic one based on greater emphasis on meeting the material needs of the people on domestic level, but not yet achieving true communism.
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
The recent Silicon Valley state bailouts here only further proves just why Chinese economic reforms are different than Western economic liberalization, and why it can be a really potent tool in building strong socialist economy. And in general, a stronger and better economic alternative to Western neoliberalism.
To put it in layman term, Western economic neoliberalism aims at creating a perfect bed for a legit "corporate laissez-faire" and thus, the state would typically have a relatively nominal position, mainly to ensure their financial security. Ultimately, the federal government's position in the US, by virtue is serving to the interest of the bourgeois capitalists.
This is in contrast to Chinese "liberal" economic reforms where it has consistently maintained that the state is the fundamental backbone and instrument to the national economic development and growth. And so far, it keeps proving so many successes in achieving real material improvements and benefits to the people.
As for the "ultra-left" criticism of supposedly China's moves at further economic privatization, denouncing them as "abandoning socialism in favor of capitalism", this is the result to the lack of proper objective understanding of Chinese socialism/SWCC and its complete historical background.
That's why they fail to understand/realize (or intentionally dismissed it) that when China are seeing increase in "private sectors" share of GDP, they're referring to competitive domestic companies incl. corporate/conglomerate giants such as Tencent, Baidu, Huawei, etc etc (alongside new waves of Chinese start-ups and unicorns).
And keep in mind that these successes are only possible under patron of Chinese SOEs and the government in directly supporting and assisting growth and maturity of these "private"/non-public companies (in Chinese term). This is also where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is taking effect, ensuring that these non-public firms will always serve to the common interest which is the people.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
Two key takeaway from China's socialist economic policy, for me is as follow here:
1.) The important role of the state, the CPC to be exact, in preserving a sovereign monetary system and deposit for the country to continue its real economic growth by ensuring the flow of moneys and capitals remains largely uninterrupted especially from foreign interventions, a major reason why China has no qualm at refusing to bail out falling big real estate conglomerates such as Evergrande because they can instead deflates the value bubble of these unsold real estate projects and arbitrarily *recycles* the intrinsic values of those properties into capitals that can be allocated to fund the growth of its hi-tech industrial sector;
2.) The importance of state enterprises in stimulating real economic growth not by means of a complete override of the economic sector (as was the case of Soviet-style autarkic model of planned economy), but by playing the key role in the market system as a buffer to grow the key hi-tech/cutting edge *domestic* enterprises on the private sector e.g. big companies such as Huawei, Tencent, Baidu, BYD etc (as shown in the same graph here 9:59), that's virtually sovereign from the influence of foreign capitals and corporate hands. This, alongside the "trickle-down" responsibility to ensure the stability of the economy at regional or local level.
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What happened to China in the past few decades alone is very analogous to Stalin's rapid industrialization drive, if anybody ever thought about it. It's interesting to note that Soviet had previously implemented the NEP, which is what the socialist market economy is modelled after at its core, but expanded upon it.
But I'd like to note that even though Stalin's collectivism of the countryside and industrialization policy was formally a departure of the NEP i.e. state capitalism mechanism w. a dominant party-led Dirigisme, it was nonetheless developed upon the core strength of NEP that's the access and the capacity to absorb foreign capitals and recycle them in order to grow surplus in high added-value, as well as the necessary jump in material condition and growth.
Now looking back at the China's experience since Deng's Reform & Opening Up, I'm starting to look more and more at it as an analogous event of socialist construction albeit being dialed back to a much slower, gradualist pace because.. ahem* I think the Soviet was too accelerationist in that sense and that, they failed to recognize and properly anticipate the dialectical consequences of the Stalin's model following the end of the War i.e. the underestimation of the US/West's systematic, organized, and well-coordinated retaliation against the Soviet's political economic paradigm during the Cold War.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aprescoup 1) Phony argument and once again, you're throwing another empty ad hominem to avoid from engaging with my argument point before. Did you not respect my position and listen to my request up there? "Don't pretend like you don't see my reply right before yours here.", I said. I'm gonna repeat my 1st point of my reply threads above, so you can't make any excuse to divert our arguments:
1) I was elaborating you facts about Chinese projects in my country in my earlier reply, and I was expecting your grounded refutation based on relevant data to those said projects as well. Trying to draw comparison of that with New Deal or European social democracy is bogus analogy, because obviously it bears little to no resemblance. Like tell me, what was your basis to draw such analogy and made you so self-righteous about it? I want to hear your display of your intellectual honesty and actually engage with your elaboration instead of stupid ad hominem, if you think you're always be correct.
So now, you read it clearly, what's your basis of comparing Chinese investment projects in my country Indonesia with the New Deal or the European social democracy? How come did you even found them to be similar, if not same? "It's more open to corporate capitalist exploitation of the working class.." Bold assertion right there, what's your data to back it up and your "New Deal" analogy buddy?
2) Coming from a so-called "libertarian socialist" student of Bakunin, Makhno, Michels, Mussolini, Petras, Pastreich, Vaush or whatever bs ideological convergence you could come up with, you're not even in position to speak about communism and be taken seriously. I don't have to start somewhere with that because you're such a joke yourself, you can't even bother yourself doing your homework and searching for the relevant and correct information out there to begin with
The fact is that you wholesale believe the widely propagated Western lies of poor Chinese, and you just proved yourself there. "Owning Nothing and Be happy" https://youtu.be/1hhSGfklMtw, I need your elaboration where did you get that quote and who said it? Also, can you see for yourself how Chinese people live in China☝️, do they look like they don't possess a livelihood necessary to sustain themselves a decent live, like your strawman Chinese that you just bloated about?
3)Oh, splendid👏 Who this is? An addition of seasoned racist orientalist "Asian" expert, who thought he could pass as legitimate one by having a Chinese name? He's no different than many other seasoned racist orientalist expert selling public face on twitter, I always dealt with people like him (while I was still there). I keep saying over and over, you're not in position to tell us Asian here because you're miserable White scum and it doesn't matter if you're actually White or not.
And I keep saying over and over as well, you're just doing this because you're desperate for strawman and you got nothing to argue. Why even citing an piece of interview completely irrelevant to our talking point? Do you even read that interview, what does he had to say specifically to the Chinese investment projects in our country here? If you think he could give us a lesson like a first-grader we are in your mind, then why are you only quoted an excerpt that has nothing to say about our arguments then??🤦
3.5) Last time you persuaded me to read that fascist theory from your much-admired fascist scum, I challenged that by mentioning the experience of my people under the 30+ years neo-fascist regime of the New Order, implying that our people were learning more or less the same kind of indoctrination people like Michels or Mussolini would teach and what's your response? You chickened out. Now, you're trying to convince me with yet another quotes of this racist White man? You really got no shame at all, did you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kphamcao "..if they are working for US entities, then it doesn't count.." Or in other words, "I don't wanna read all that you're trying to prove me, but I demand you to listen my rhetorics instead!". Did you even watched any of videos I showed you up there? On-shoring assets of foreign companies into your countries isn't a display of US in possession of much of the technology, manufacturing capacity and anything else, even when foreign assets owned by US in China won't mean a lot because China's in real control of the manufacturing capacity and the supply chain overall, they can exert their authority over any said multinational companies or else, you'll never heard of Huawei, BYD, NIO, Alibaba, WeChat etc etc. Your logic is a flawed one, buddy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why do we keep seeing and hearing all those ultra-left critiques of SWCC as a "merely social democratic liberalism but make it red" is because SWCC is a direct continuation of Lenin's legacy of NEP, an early form and experiment at socialist market economy, by means of pragmatic and materialist endeavor on scientific socialism development and expansion.
Emphasizing on extensive, long-term socialist construction in mind addressing the intricacies of capitalist contradiction by scientific means, instead of radical experiment found in Stalin's autarkic collectivism which, let's be real, failed to materialize into successful legacy to be carried over by its successors at home, and applied by other countries abroad due to its inherent limitation and subsequent contradictions that rose relative to specific political and material condition at that specific time i.e. post-WWII reconstruction and isolation period.
Let's not forget some important context here: Soviet Union under Stalin didn't immediately become isolated in the first place by Western nations altogether until post-WWII period despite continuous barrages of anti-communist propaganda. In fact, Soviet was actually a major beneficiary of US industrial expansion extensively that's brought upon by the "New Dealers"/the northern industrialist cliques.
This condition left Soviet Union with a major weakness that's being critically dependent to US's specific position of relative political pragmatism at the time, given the autarkic nature of Stalin's collectivist economic policy. And we shouldn't mistake Stalin's collectivism and its material results as an advance toward higher stage of socialism, it's not.
Collectivism was actually a decisive political economic strategy conceived with primary objective as a defense mechanism against imminent threat of fascism currently on the rise in Europe (at the time), and to safeguard socialism construction by means of improving the material condition and developing the productive forces immediately.
Therefore, Soviet Collectivism was meant more as a temporary, somewhat accelerationist political-economic policy with primary intent to raise the living standard and productive capacity of the people, in the face of the rise of fascism in Europe, and later on as a potent defense mechanism to mitigate subsequent fascist military conquest led by Nazi Germany.
Moving on, most ultra-left critiques against SWCC tend have no firm basis in real-world material reality. They're, for the most part, a part of alienated left-wing groups unable to contribute anything meaningful to the existing socialist development or even to start one and therefore, are subject to anti-communist propaganda themselves.
Furthermore, most of "social democracy" assertions against SWCC are also due to the fact that modern Western social democracy, as well as its derivative eurocommunism form, came about in the first place as a reaction to Lenin's NEP/socialist market economy (and broad socialism in general), tracing its roots from Bismarck's economic and social policy during Imperial Germany.
Therefore, their criticism are inherently anti-communist in essence. They're simply capable to mask it through sophistry and dogmatic interpretation of ML-ism in order to distract you from a major fact that SWCC is still a real socialism, and it's what makes China capable of having significant economic growth and material development independently. Whilst Western social democracies wouldn't even be exist without extensively expropriating wealth from other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aprescoup You're desperate for strawman and has nothing to argue here. I'm just gonna drop some truth bombs before your faces:
-China's FDI inflows to Indonesia ranks 2nd highest in the recent years, only behind Singapore;
-China has extensively cooperated on our infrastructure projects since the dawn of our intensified diplomatic relation. Amongst them are the Suramadu bridge, Jatigede hydroplant, Jakarta-Bandung HSR, Kayan hydroplant, several hydroplants in Sulawesi, numerous smelters in Sulawesi, extensive expressway projects in Java and numerous ports built across Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi and Papua.
-China also invested heavily in numerous joint ventures under strategic "Two Countries, Twin Parks" project, encompassing numerous industrial park projects in Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, which will help developing our industrial capacity e.g. Konawe and Morowali Industrial Parks in Sulawesi and planned Mangkupadi Green Industrial Park in Kalimantan, all of which will be expected to kickstart our first ever domestic EV plant and renewable energy development. We'll also benefit greatly from tech & knowledge transfer scheme and we'll be able develop our own national industrial capacity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lmao, so our White boy aprescoup just wrote this out in Danny's latest video, admitting his true face🤭
Michels was a socialist ("Politically, he moved from Social Democratic Party to the Italian Socialist Party, adhering to the Italian revolutionary syndicalist wing and later to Italian fascism, which he saw as more democratic form of socialism." ..and Mussolini was a marxist, he was a socialist before turning into a fascist! ("Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I. By 1919 a radically changed Mussolini had founded the fascist movement, which would later become the Fascist Party.")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1