Chinese Economics Thread

[FirnCavalry]

The upholding was about the CCP leadership, not about planned economy vs. market economy. So that upholding is not in contradictory of Leninism, and not related to Marxism.

An important development (and difference) of Lenin is that he advocate of the establishment of a socialist state surrounded by capitalist states and the survival of the socialist state can only be lead by a communist party. Marx did not envision such stage. He did not point out how to move from capitalism to communism at all. In his vision of communism, there is no state machine, therefor communist party is not needed at all. In Marx vision, communist party is only meant to lead the struggle to overthrow capitalist's state, it has no role in leading and ruling of the society afterwards. Marxism does not equal to Leninism. Marx was more of a theorist even though he was actively involved in actions. On the other hand Lenin, Mao and Deng were more of activists trying to do something unguided by Marx in a harsh reality.

Deng also said that now it is the early/entry-level (初级) socialism, there will be advanced level (less capitalist practice) socialism. So Deng is only acknowledging China's current lack of material base, not changing the ultimate goal of communism. It is not deviation (which would mean a different direction, different end goal), but an early stage (half in and half out) of socialism.

Good point on the entry-level socialism but I'd rather say 'primary stage of socialism'. Never mind, it's only a name/symbol. And you also mentioned the material base. Great! As we are talking about economics, I'd rather call them economic foundations. Never mind, just keep it if you like your description. I do agree we should apply capitalist means to accelerate the economic development and to establish economic foundations in this stage, but our country is anyway a socialist country, and it cannot always be a 'primary/early/entry/etc' one. So, when will the 'primary stage' end?

 

[FirnCavalry]

@FirnCavalry ,

In your original post here, https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-economics-thread.t3715/page-664#post-434510, which started the back and forth, you did not state it was a potential one. No one was saying there was no potential. In that post, you showed that you did not know the difference between the meanings of 'economic crisis' and 'supply-side reform'.

In fact, I didn't say China is now in a economic crisis. When I put them together, I do NOT mean I think they are equal. They are related. The reform is a reaction to the crisis or potential one. That's all. If you don't like back & forth. Let's stop here. Thank you!

 

[broadsword]

Your post #6634, in your own words,

Sorry to bother you with such a tone-twisted phrase. China's official ecnomists created it to avoid using some sensitive phrase like 'Residual Value', 'Over Production', and/or 'Ecnomic Crisis', which should belong to your capitalist countries!

you were suggesting China was using the term 'supply-side reform' instead of 'economic crisis', 'over production' and 'residual value'.

edit: Currently, China is applying 'supply-side reforms' too, is it not?

 

[FirnCavalry]

Your post #6634, in your own words,



you were suggesting China was using the term 'supply-side reform' instead of 'economic crisis', 'over production' and 'residual value'.

edit: Currently, China is applying 'supply-side reforms' too, is it not?

I mean we are talking about sloution instead of the reason (because the reasons are taboos, of course taxiya said they are not. Good news!). If I made you think they are equal, I apologize. OK?

 

[broadsword]

I mean we are talking about sloution instead of the reason (because the reasons are taboos, of course taxiya said they are not. Good news!). If I made you think they are equal, I apologize. OK?

Ok. I had to respond because your original post does not give the true statement on the Chinese government.

 

[FirnCavalry]

Ok. I had to respond because your original post does not give the true statement on the Chinese government.

Dear t2, we know they are different. When I said 'avoid', I don't mean 'instead'. I'm very sorry to make you link them as equal. I mean 'China are trying to walk around the reason to solve the problem'. I think it is a true statement on Chinese government. Maybe taxiya has different opinion. Welcome!

 

[broadsword]

Dear t2, we know they are different. When I said 'avoid', I don't mean 'instead'. I'm very sorry to make you link them as equal. I mean 'China are trying to walk around the reason to solve the problem'. I think it is a true statement on Chinese government. Maybe taxiya has different opinion. Welcome!

I have not yet read any economist worth his salt, even Westerners, calling 'supply-side reform' an attempt to walk around the reason to solve the problem. This is something new from you.

 

[FirnCavalry]

I have not yet read any economist worth his salt, even Westerners, calling 'supply-side reform' an attempt to walk around the reason to solve the problem. This is something new from you.

Because your economists are not living in a socialist country. Have you ever heard of 'increasing the consumer's ability to pay'?

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yeah and do you know who doesn't think lifting people out of poverty is a human right? The people who like using sanctions as a weapon so they can make life difficult for the average citizen in those countries hoping on hope alone that it will start a revolution and the government is taken over and the new government will be friendlier (not at all guaranteed) to the instigator of sanctions' interests. The rulers are always the last people to suffer from sanctions. That's why they don't consider economic stability as a human right because they would be high-end violators of that right.

 

[broadsword]

Because your economists are not living in a socialist country. Have you ever heard of 'increasing the consumer's ability to pay'?

That is a generic term. Any difference?