Comments by "GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies14" (@guywholikesthesnarkies1435) on "Geopolitical Economy Report" channel.

  1. 369
  2. 189
  3. 152
  4. 149
  5. 127
  6. 120
  7. 111
  8. 102
  9. 90
  10. 76
  11. 75
  12. 74
  13. 58
  14. 56
  15. 53
  16. 51
  17. 42
  18. 41
  19. 39
  20. 36
  21. 36
  22. 35
  23. 34
  24. 33
  25. 33
  26. 32
  27. 30
  28. 30
  29. 29
  30. 27
  31. 26
  32. 26
  33. 26
  34. 25
  35. 24
  36. 24
  37. 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
  38. 24
  39. 23
  40. 22
  41. 22
  42. 21
  43. 21
  44. 21
  45. 21
  46. 21
  47. 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
  48. 20
  49. 20
  50. 19