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.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I already see tankies making up some of the most delusional excuses youve ever heard.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      The most ridiculous I have heard is that when I pointed out that people had to wait for years to get a car, and bread lines were common, I got told that the scarcity in communist states is by design.

      SuRe yOu lIvE iN tHe CoUnTrYsIdE, bUt YoU dOn’T nEeD a CaR. JuSt WaLk oR gEt A bUgGy.

      • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah over production of goods is a problem but the ussr was built different. Hungary(where im from) has the second best land for agriculture in all of europe only after ukraine and somehow we still had food rations. Same in ukraine too. They had it even worse.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        when I pointed out that people had to wait for years to get a car, and bread lines were common

        Breadlines weren’t common. Breadlines never took place in the USSR between WW2 ending and Perestroika taking place, you’re being ahistorical. Food supply wasn’t secure for all the population in any nation until the green revolution, the USSR being no exception to that.

        Regarding waiting for a car, the soviet economy simply didn’t prioritize car manufacturing. The planning didn’t intend for every citizen to have a car in the 70s or 80s, they didn’t intend to make so many cars, so naturally, the people who had the wealth to buy a car, had to wait in waiting lists to get one, it’s not so hard to understand. There are no waiting lists in capitalism because you can segregate 99% of the population from consuming a particular good simply by making it expensive. In socialism, when you don’t have extreme inequality, most people will have access to purchase power for the vast majority of goods you produce. This in turn means that either you manufacture literally from the start one product for every citizen, or there will be waiting lists, it’s really as simple as that.

        When you can’t afford a house in capitalism until you’re 35 (if you can ever afford it) you aren’t technically in a waiting list, so even if there’s only new housing for 5% of the population every year, there will be no “waiting list” because simply the prices will go up until only 5% can afford it. In socialism, the same 5% of housing can be afforded by 50% of people, so the way to allocate the goods is a waiting list instead of priority through wealth accumulation.

        Do you really fail to understand this?

          • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            Transport and a personal vehicle are two different things, go to any country outside the US, car ownership is reserved for the upper classes globally.

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              So I, a resident of Europe, am an upper class for owning a 2004 1.3 litre petrol engine Toyota Yaris.

              We started this comment chain poking fun at the most laughable arguments by tankies… And you guys keep on giving.

              • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yes given you statistically don’t have a reason to own the car as you have well designed cities and functional public transport, the latter almost exclusively due to the socialist movement.

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  functional public transport, the latter almost exclusively due to the socialist movement.

                  Dublin is nowhere near a socialist city, nor having a “functional public transport”. Many people in Ireland still live in hinterlands and rural areas with sparse public transport that comes only an hour or so. Ireland is ranked as having one of the worst public transports along with Poland, the latter being a former communist country!

                  Lol, you give the worst cope I have seen from a tankie. Even tried to gaslight me that I don’t need a car! I wish so I don’t have to spend ludicrous amount of money! I can tell you’re an edgelord Yank who thinks capitalism oppresses you personally, even though you are typing this from a computer or smartphone, developed thanks to capitalism, and while sipping hot cocoa that is not being rationed. And expressing opinions safe and sound protected by the rule of law of wherever you are.

                  Tankies keep on giving the most absurd responses and cracks me up. Thanks for giving me a quick chuckle!

                  If you are so enamoured by communism, go to Cuba, China or North Korea and let’s see if you won’t return begging for your passport back!

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            And access to transport was widely available to the overwhelming majority of the population through trains, trams, buses and trolleybuses. Even if your American mind can’t comprehend this fact, owning a car isn’t the ultimate form of mobility, there are alternatives that are arguably better. City design was centered around walkability, density and public transit; metro systems were luxurious and a predicament all out of themselves, and housing being generally obtained through the worker’s union implied that workers usually lived in relative proximity to their workplaces.

            The soviet economy was a developing, centrally planned economy, not running under the premise of overproduction and surplus but running under the premise of 5-year plans of production. There was full employment, and almost complete usage of the raw materials extracted and industrial goods produced. Making twice as many cars, implied removing all of that labor and those resources from another sector of the economy. When the premise isn’t to “make money selling cars to rich people”, but to “grant adequate material conditions and welfare to every citizen”, you have to make decisions like that. More cars could have implied, for example, fewer hospital beds or fewer trams, but my point is that making more private cars would have NECESSARILY meant making less of something else of which there’s also no surplus (because the premise of the USSR was the non-existence of surplus). It’s very easy to have surpluses in a capitalist economy when you don’t care about 80% of the population not having access to the goods and services available, when you want everyone to have access it’s a different story.

            • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Tell that to people living in the countryside, lol. Even if your wannabe-communist, Western-born, city dwelling, mindset tell you otherwise, those on the country have limited access to transportation and infrastructures that city folks take for granted.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                Data says otherwise. Since the end of the soviet block, there’s been a massive migration outwards from the countryside in favour of urban life all over the former socialist republics. Maybe the idea of subsidizing the infrastructure of the countryside despite it not making sense within capitalism wasn’t such a bad idea after all… Please, try to respond to that: why are people flocking from the degrading countryside in post soviet countries

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Please, try to respond to that: why are people flocking from the degrading countryside in post soviet countries

                  “I don’t understand why people live in cities.” - Peak Tankie Analysis, apparently

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Since the end of the soviet block, there’s been a massive migration outwards from the countryside in favour of urban life all over the former socialist republics.

                  We’re talking about during communist era, you goal-post moving dong head.

                  You are literally just did what this comment chain is criticising lol.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                It turned a backwater pre-capitalist empire where 80% of the population were poor farmers, into the second world power in unprecedentedly quick industrialization and development, defeated the Nazis and prevented their extermination of the Slavic people including Poles and Ukrainians, it guaranteed rights to women and to national minorities like Kazakh, Uzbeki, Georgians, Armenians, it established for the first time in history concepts like socialized healthcare and pensions for every citizen which western Europe later emulated… After being dismantled, of which it’s been 33 years, Russia still hasn’t recovered the GDP per capita of the USSR, so what does that tell you about how well liberalism is working in Russia?

                • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Socialised healthcare and pension first came during Bismarck’s time-- long before communism has come to Russia.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  So they’re still around right, because of how well it succeeded? It didn’t completely fail and send the country into famine and despair did it?

                  … oh

      • escapesamsara@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Neither of those things are true, unless you’re extremely poor, in which case why are you trying to buy an extreme luxury like a private car?

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    If you think the Chinese economy is bad now, wait 15 years. No amount of sending economists to the gulag will hide this disaster.

    Edit: tankie downvotes are like nectar of the gods to me. Your precious CCP will wither like a plant in the desert.

    • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I’ve already been banned from Hexbear. Bunch of assclowns over there.

      Edit: and now lemmygrad

      • Arn_Thor@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Lots of people, especially the Chinese. The sentiment about work, investment, economic prospects, consumption are all quite bad. The central bank is cutting rates. Just today the government dipped their toes into the helicopter money game. The only thing keeping the party going is exports

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        92 upvotes would suggest a lot of people.

        But everything you could say about China rings just as true in Europe, in Japan and Korea, in India, in Russia…

        Global populations are heading for a heavy sag, but westerners only know how to heckle the Evil Foreigners.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Funny because I’m European, and the GDP per capita levels of most EU countries are at 2008 levels.

          As for a population pyramid, China will face the same problem as other countries as you say, possibly more magnified.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 days ago

            EU countries are filling up with war and climate refugees. And… 2008 is one hell of a year to pick as your benchmark.

            • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yeah, blame the immigrants. Very .world thing to do lol. Taking Germany, for example, according to Wikipedia, 0.17% population growth per year between 2010 and 2020 doesn’t seem too great for me, compared to China’s yearly >4% GDP growth for example they’d reduce per-capita growths by an insignificant amount. I’m European myself, and I can tell you that the lack of GDP per capita growth between 2008 and 2024 isn’t due to population reasons either, and I’m guessing it’s the same for the bigger EU economies like France,Italy and Spain but feel free to correct me otherwise.

              2008 as my benchmark is exactly my point: the European economy has only now economically recovered from the effects of its own self-imposed policy of austerity and deprivation of worker rights and welfare, without having restored said rights or welfare to pre-2008 levels. And we see countries like the UK under “labor” administration falling to the same policy again as soon as they enter the government. In the meanwhile, without falling into such policy (although without many significant victories for welfare and labor AFAIK), China has grown its per-capita GDP threefold since 2008.

              So no, I don’t think “Chinese economy looks bad”, I wish my European country’s economy would mimic a fraction of the Chinese growth actually

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          ·
          4 days ago

          Even then, it isn’t healthy, just healthier. The USA is still going to going to experience economic issues of a growing elderly population, it just won’t be as bad.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 days ago

            The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration that they can adjust at will. On the other hand, China’s leadership, being Han supremacist, is not receptive to immigration at all.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Immigration definitely helps, especially compared to China. I’m just noting that there will still be some decrease in the ratio of retired workers to current workers.

            • rammer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration

              Except that even in the Americas the population is declining. There is a limit to it. The US can outlast many other countries because of immigration but it too has to face the same problem as everyone else.

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 days ago

                Not really. They are the #1 immigration destination. If the US runs out of potential immigrants that means every other country is far worse off. This game is like the old joke about outrunning a bear: you don’t need to run faster than the bear — you only need to be faster than the guy next to you.

            • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              3 days ago

              Have you… have you seen how Americans have been talking about the border? Especially this election cycle? I don’t know if would characterize either party’s constituencies as “receptive”.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              The US have the benefit of essentially limitless immigration

              glances at US immigration policy

              Does it?

              China’s leadership, being Han supremacist, is not receptive to immigration at all.

              Wit drier than a lint trap.

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Coming from one of the foremost resident tankies here, that’s a glowing compliment. Thank you.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Does it?

                People still pay upwards of $10,000 US to get smuggled into the country that they will only work in for 4 years as basic farm and factory workers in a house of 20 people.

                The world is a mess and America is the gold mines of california with no gold in it. But a lot of people are getting rich selling immigrants the shovels.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  People still pay upwards of $10,000 US to get smuggled into the country that they will only work in for 4 years as basic farm and factory workers in a house of 20 people.

                  You’re just describing human trafficking. This is modern slavery. Might as well brag about all the Africans who moved here in the 18th and 19th centuries.

                  The world is a mess and America is the gold mines of california

                  Who can forget the huge influx of East Asian immigrants flooding into the California gold mines to be worked to death in the mines? Another excellent example of American prosperity.

          • Shard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            This is the new normal for highly developed economies. The best they can hope for is a 1 to 1 replacement of their population. We’re not likely to see another baby boom occur.

            We’re not going to see a typical population pyramid any more. Because that means a large infant death rate and either war, disasters or a massive suicide epidemic cutting away the young adult population to get the pyramid shape.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            it just won’t be as bad.

            glances at Ferguson

            glances at Columbia

            glances at the NYC subway

            How bad are we talking?

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Basically, yes. The sides are nearly parallel, which is great. Compare with China’s, which forms a steep V. Once GenX hits retirement age they are completely screwed. The CCP’s recent push for “traditional family values” and increased birth rates is no coincidence.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days ago

        The birthing rates are only dropping, in 15 years all of those people will be to old to work but there are not nearly enough to replace them.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          What gives workers even less time to be consumers, making China even more dependant on overseas markets.

          • takeda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            996 = working from 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week, work schedule practiced currently in many companies in China

            7-10-7 = I’m guessing 7am to 10pm, 7 days a week because of worker shortage?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 days ago

              Old enough to remember people talking about a 4 day work week and complaining about how many bullshit jobs our economy is swamped with.

              But I guess we actually do have a sever labor shortage and all that surplus manufacturing jettisoned out into the global market simply isn’t enough.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            3 days ago

            996 is a term the Chinese use to describe working 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      I had the most hilarious discussion with a Tankie about China a while back. They refused to accept that China is pretty much communist in name only. I pointed out that they had billionaires, privately-owned companies, a stock exchange and private property, meaning you can earn capital in China.

      The Tankie actually said something on the lines of, “If you would JUST READ MARX you would know that earning capital is a fundamental cornerstone of communism!”

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        The Tankie actually said something on the lines of, “If you would JUST READ MARX you would know that earning capital is a fundamental cornerstone of communism!”

        I’m a communist who doesn’t want to call China a communist country, so I don’t really agree with the person that you were talking to, but your second paragraph does show you haven’t researched communism or its history. The debate of whether societies need to undergo capitalist capital accumulation first to enter communism is about as old as communism, and the history of communism is full of examples of this. It’s the ideological reason why the Russian Socialist Democratic Labor Party split into two wings: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the former believing that the Russian Empire had to undergo capitalism first in other to become communist, and the latter wanting to implement socialism to the primitive almost feudalist Russian empire. Some similar split happened more discreetly inside the Communist Party of China, with Mao implementing socialism directly to the extremely underdeveloped Chinese society, and later Deng Xiaoping opting for the more market-socialism (known now to many as "socialism with Chinese characteristics).

        So you may or may not agree whether china is communist, but from your comment it’s clear that you’re very oblivious to the historical and ideological reasons for the argument as to whether china is or isn’t a socialist country and whether they’re on the path to it. It’s good to discuss things and to have opinions, but please get informed before dismissing other people’s opinions on topics they’ve probably dedicated more time than you to studying.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          So you may or may not agree whether china is communist, but from your comment it’s clear that you’re very oblivious to the historical and ideological reasons for the argument as to whether china is or isn’t a socialist country and whether they’re on the path to it.

          Weird how this path went from a communist country under Mao to a capitalist one under Xi. I guess it goes back again?

          How exactly do you achieve communism via billionaires, a stock exchange, private ownership, etc.? That’s ludicrous.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m not myself trying to make the assertion that china is communism or that it will achieve communism, I’m saying that what you consider “ludicrous”, has been a hotly debated topic for the past 100 years with many proponents on both sides, many of them with much more knowledge of socialism and revolutions than you or I possess.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yes. I stand by my statement that it is ludicrous to go from no private property to private property and still call yourself communist.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                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.

                • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  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.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                No, no, you see, people who Read Theory™ have taken a side, therefore, the position is valid. Like how the value of the holsum Khmer Rouge is debatable instead of gruesomely apparent!

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          If the Bolsheviks didn’t believe that Russia had to undergo capitalism then why did they implement, and I quote Lenin, state capitalism.

          Also there’s already a term for socialists who tolerate capitalism, it’s social democrats. Maybe the “democrat” thing is the issue MLMs have with the whole concept, not the tolerating capitalism part.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            there’s already a term for socialists who tolerate capitalism, it’s social democrats

            Social Democrats don’t want a transition to communism, not even ideologically. Dengists and Mensheviks do, at least ideologically. Whether you believe that or not is a different debate, but equating socialdemocrats with mensheviks is dumb, not a dunk.

            why did they implement, and I quote Lenin, state capitalism

            Look, I’m not here to argue for Marxism-Leninism against you because you’re obviously trying to be smug, not trying to have a civilized discussion. If you actually want some good (in my opinion) analysis of actually-existing socialism, there are plenty of Michael Parenti videos online, or you can pick up his book “Blackshirts and Reds”. But I suspect you’re just here to punch to those communists that are further left than you are. If you do want to have this discussion let me know.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              Social Democrats don’t want a transition to communism, not even ideologically.

              Last I checked the SPD’s party program still speaks of socialism.

              But I suspect you’re just here to punch to those communists that are further left than you are.

              I’m an Anarchist. Council Communists are generally to the right of me, quite adjacent but not quite there, Tankies somehow managed to seat themselves at the very other side of the plenum.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                Last I checked the SPD’s party program still speaks of socialism

                I’m sure the SPD party program talks about the end of capitalism /s

                Again, not here to engage with smug factionalists. Have a good day

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  I’m not a factionalist you’re the factionalist. Just agree with me and be done with it!

      • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        I mean you can still have private property under communism, it’s the capital making property that’s more owned by the workers themselves, but you can still own things under communism.

        Similarly, you can earn capital under communism too, it’s just that the tools for earning said capital aren’t owned by corporations under corporations under CEOs under the 1%. It’s not a cornerstone for sure, but it’s not like communism is anti capital and growth and owning things

      • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Private property as in land or a house? Because that’s not how it works in China. You can only buy it for a specific set of time. Besides that it is indeed just a capitalistic country with an oppressive state.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        something on the lines of

        Any time someone describes something that happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they are misrepresenting what happened 100% of the time.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Hahaha, are you saying that because it was you on the other end of that discussion? I know you love China so much that you are willing to praise their genocide of Uyghur people.

          Maybe you could distill the theory for us a bit so we can decipher why “socialism” is producing hundreds of billionaires.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Hahaha, are you saying that because it was you on the other end of that discussion?

            Not to my knowledge, but there’s no way for anyone to know what incident it’s referencing so it could be any conversation they had with anyone, or made up whole cloth. I say this exact thing every time I see someone claim something happened on the fediverse without providing a link 1 2 3, and I haven’t been wrong yet. And that’s not really surprising, why wouldn’t someone provide a link to something that made the other side look bad, unless it didn’t actually play out the way they claim?

            For example, when you say that I “praise the genocide of Uyghur people,” that is a lie, and it should be obvious that it’s a lie from the fact that you didn’t provide a link to it.

            I’d be happy to have a good faith discussion regarding China’s economic policies and how they relate to socialism. Just not with someone who I already know is going to lie, misrepresent whatever I say, and act in bad faith, as I know you will.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              From the position of your acceptance of Uyghur genocide and pretending that China is anywhere near the left, it’s astonishing you are comfortable accusing anyone else of bad faith.

              There’s simply no way to have a serious discussion with you regarding anything about China. That’s why you have chosen the lemmy.ml instance, it is a hivemind of like thinkers all sheltered from the truth by fragile admins.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                3 days ago

                Oh, look at that, you can’t provide a link. Because you’re a liar. And once again my rule is proven true.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              For example, when you say that I “praise the genocide of Uyghur people,” that is a lie, and it should be obvious that it’s a lie from the fact that you didn’t provide a link to it.

              That’s right! OBJECTION! is just a genocide denialist, like Holocaust denialists! Much better.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Genocide now has a very specific definition and there’s no need to put “Uyghur genocide” in quotes like you’re trying to deny it’s really a genocide. It absolutely is.

                  Here’s the definition, all it takes is for any ONE of these criteria to be met for it to be considered a genocide:

                  https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2

                  "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

                  (a) Killing members of the group;

                  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

                  © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

                  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

                  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

                  So break this down for China’s treatment of the Uyghur:

                  a) No. Not in, say, the same way Israel is executing Palestinians.

                  b) Absolutely. Forced imprisonment? Slave labor? Unquestionable.

                  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights

                  The Chinese government has imprisoned more than one million people since 2017 and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labor, and forced sterilizations.

                  The United States determined that China’s actions constitute genocide, while a UN report said they could amount to crimes against humanity.

                  c) Yes, see above link.

                  d) Yes, forced sterilizations.

                  https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22311356/china-uyghur-birthrate-sterilization-genocide

                  “In recent months, several Uyghur survivors have testified that the camps themselves have become sites of sterilization by injection, forced IUD implantation, and forced abortion.”

                  e) Also yes.

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48825090

                  “China is deliberately separating Muslim children from their families, faith and language in its far western region of Xinjiang, according to new research.”

                  So when you have 5 criteria for genocide, ANY of which are enough to qualify, and China’s treatment of the Uyghur hits 4/5? Yeah, that’s a genocide.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’ll have you know that America did some bad stuff so that justifies literally any amount of authoritarianism from China.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        America doing ‘bad stuff’ is a comical understatement. Sure, the genocide of native Americans and chattel slavery is “bad”, but it is probably worse than general authoritarian actions. You seem to have them the other way around, or at least imply that.

        Both suck. Both have superiority complexes. I have to deal with American superiority complexes, so that paints me as “pro China”.

        I’m simply pro unity.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You seem to grasp and miss the point at the same time.

          When tankies are faced with terrible shit their government is currently doing, they bring up terrible stuff America did a hundred years ago as if that somehow justifies it. Yes, both things bad, but the second thing has zero bearing in relation to an article about China literally disappearing dissidents.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          They were being sarcastic and facetious. Tankies use a similar argument everytime somebody speaks ill of China.

          Examples:


          “TikTok is a military campaign proven to spy on messages and photos and send massive amounts of data to Chinese headquarters.”

          “OH OKAY but its fine when FaceBook and Google hand over info to the USA, is that it?”


          “Chinese hostile takeovers of Hong Kong, Tibet, and soon potential war with Taiwan and Philippines is worrying. World War 3 could be upon us.”

          “BuT nAtO anD IsrAeL eXiST!”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Reminds me of the Clinton Death List, where anyone tangential to Bill and Hilary who had a bad turn was allegedly victimized to cover up an even more insidious crime.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Xi is just a walking talking crying infant with an ego that can barely fit in mainland China.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    People complain when Trump and Biden puts tariffs on Chinese products or try to ban Chinese software, or invest hundreds of billions into bringing manufacturing back to the US, but it’s like they just can’t comprehend what a horrific government China has, between an authoritarian police state and leveraging slave labor to take over global industries, they’re a huge threat to freedom everywhere.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’d prefer to redirect them to the north. Let them invade the fertile and undeveloped lands russia has neglected, and get back Yongmingcheng. It beats fighting every other country in the pacific - aside from North Korea.

      No one will care if China invades Russia. Do eet!