4 ms·

Was the cracking down always the plan for the CCP? use capitalism to rise the tide and then once everything has been modernised take control again?

vmception 5y ago
Just one of many plans that now has a decent opportunity presented. China can sometimes seem arbitrary but its much easier to think of it as a theme park than what we respect as governments. At a theme park, run by a corporation, you understand there are rules that can be enforced, your participation is limited and conditional, anything exploitative or erotic will be policed swiftly and heavily, and some exhibits are cordoned off and empty. Even if we want to imagine that everyone is woefully oppressed actively thinking about how oppressed they are, the day to day experience can actually be pretty pleasant and everyone also understands that it would be dumb to challenge the stewards of the park.
- jack_riminton 5y ago
  Yes but in this case I think a more apt analogy would be of a funfair with lots of different stall owners who were under the impression that although they weren't completely free, they at least wouldn't have their stalls taken over at some point in the future
- cybernautique 5y ago
  I never thought I'd see an unironic invocation of panem-et-circenses[1], especially with regards to a sinofascist regime. It is extremely incorrect, untoward, and downright harmful to draw parallels between the CCP and, say, Busch Gardens. In a theme park, run by a corporation, I understand that the proprietors of said park will not: drag me to a detention camp; do the same, or worse, for the unfortunate souls who share my relation; imprison and enslave millions of ethnic/religious minorities; make extremely aggressive overtures against other "theme parks," to the tune of building artificial land to claim (in whole or part) the international commons. [1] https://www.mccc.edu/pdf/arc141/Bread%20&%20Circuses%20(Panem%20et%20Circenses).pdf https://www.mccc.edu/pdf/arc141/Bread%20&%20Circuses%20(Pane...
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Maybe a doom park is better?
  - vmception 5y ago
    Think of it more like if the British East India Company ran a theme park, if the analogy is what bothers you. (As that corporation did have those unilateral powers)
dragonelite 5y ago
Like the Deng Xiaoping quote goes "Some areas and some people can get rich first, lead and help other regions and people, and gradually achieve common prosperity." wouldn't be surprised its probably a mistranslation of the real quote. But Lenin talks about using capitalism to increase the productive powers of a nation and use the generated surplus values to help the people get cheap healthcare, infrastructure and a better common prosperity. Instead of seeing the capitalist stash away in a bank account not being trickled down to general public.
- colordrops 5y ago
  The goal of capitalism was never to concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny minority, regardless of the ideology of the nation.
  - ulzeraj 5y ago
    That makes no sense. Capitalism has no goal. Capitalism is the market and the market are people. You might not like the results but saying it is alive and has a goal sound exactly like conspiracy theorists who believe in NWO and the Illuminati.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      What I meant was "the goal of regimes that implement capitalism was never to concentrate wealth". Also I was saying what the goal wasn't. Do you understand now?
      - ulzeraj 5y ago
        I'm sorry I've misread.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      > Capitalism is the market and the market are people. markets can (and did) exist before capitalism https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-difference-between-capitalist-system-and-free-market-system.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-differe...
bakuninsbart 5y ago
It depends on what you mean by crackdown. On capitalism? Yes, and they've been really clear about it. China still has the official plan to introduce socialism by 2050, capitalist freedoms were never meant to be permanent. Now by 2050, the CCP is also supposed to be merely taking a backseat roll and the society will be equal and free. I think that's the contentious point within the CCP. Xi is part of the hardline left within the party, who is scared of losing to much influence to capitalists. He is naturally allied with CCP members who want more hard power. Lastly he's also almost certainly a social conservative, as are many of the current people in the leadership. Xi was sent to hard labor in the countryside as a youth, and then went on to pretty strict education. He sees younger people today as weak and fun-seeking and that doesn't sit well with him and the other bigwigs. (This is all my own conjecture, take it with a grain of salt)
- justicezyx 5y ago
  > China still has the official plan to introduce socialism by 2050 Where did you get this? Socialism is installed in China in 1960s, as we were told in text book. If there was such a plan to start socialism in China in 2050, that must be invented after 2008 after I left China. As for what is really socialism, the definitions I see so far are as colorful as capitalism. You might be referring some definition of socialism you saw from Chinese source, or some translated sources? It's becoming more and more clear that China is more of a political imagination for venting, at least on HN.
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    Indeed, translations change a lot, and phrasing also changed over time within China, but you are right to call me out on being imprecise. In german we usually differentiate between socialistic and socialist with the former being the movement working on becoming the second. Still, Marx was already talking about the difference between "lower" communism, socialist mode of production, and "final" communism, the communist society. Mao said China was in the initial stage of socialism, but didn't really explain what that meant. This was then built on by his successors.[1] This article goes into a bit of detail on the current plan, which is now to reach the final state of socialism by 2050.[2] This has been a key aspect of internal CPC ideology since the 70s, so I'm not sure what you consider "venting". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism [2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3_4 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3_...
president 5y ago
I don't think there is any plan other than use any tool available to maintain power and control.

vmception 5y ago

Just one of many plans that now has a decent opportunity presented. China can sometimes seem arbitrary but its much easier to think of it as a theme park than what we respect as governments. At a theme park, run by a corporation, you understand there are rules that can be enforced, your participation is limited and conditional, anything exploitative or erotic will be policed swiftly and heavily, and some exhibits are cordoned off and empty. Even if we want to imagine that everyone is woefully oppressed actively thinking about how oppressed they are, the day to day experience can actually be pretty pleasant and everyone also understands that it would be dumb to challenge the stewards of the park.

jack_riminton 5y ago
Yes but in this case I think a more apt analogy would be of a funfair with lots of different stall owners who were under the impression that although they weren't completely free, they at least wouldn't have their stalls taken over at some point in the future
cybernautique 5y ago
I never thought I'd see an unironic invocation of panem-et-circenses[1], especially with regards to a sinofascist regime. It is extremely incorrect, untoward, and downright harmful to draw parallels between the CCP and, say, Busch Gardens. In a theme park, run by a corporation, I understand that the proprietors of said park will not: drag me to a detention camp; do the same, or worse, for the unfortunate souls who share my relation; imprison and enslave millions of ethnic/religious minorities; make extremely aggressive overtures against other "theme parks," to the tune of building artificial land to claim (in whole or part) the international commons. [1] https://www.mccc.edu/pdf/arc141/Bread%20&%20Circuses%20(Panem%20et%20Circenses).pdf https://www.mccc.edu/pdf/arc141/Bread%20&%20Circuses%20(Pane...
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Maybe a doom park is better?
- vmception 5y ago
  Think of it more like if the British East India Company ran a theme park, if the analogy is what bothers you. (As that corporation did have those unilateral powers)

dragonelite 5y ago

Like the Deng Xiaoping quote goes "Some areas and some people can get rich first, lead and help other regions and people, and gradually achieve common prosperity." wouldn't be surprised its probably a mistranslation of the real quote. But Lenin talks about using capitalism to increase the productive powers of a nation and use the generated surplus values to help the people get cheap healthcare, infrastructure and a better common prosperity. Instead of seeing the capitalist stash away in a bank account not being trickled down to general public.

colordrops 5y ago
The goal of capitalism was never to concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny minority, regardless of the ideology of the nation.
- ulzeraj 5y ago
  That makes no sense. Capitalism has no goal. Capitalism is the market and the market are people. You might not like the results but saying it is alive and has a goal sound exactly like conspiracy theorists who believe in NWO and the Illuminati.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    What I meant was "the goal of regimes that implement capitalism was never to concentrate wealth". Also I was saying what the goal wasn't. Do you understand now?
    - ulzeraj 5y ago
      I'm sorry I've misread.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > Capitalism is the market and the market are people. markets can (and did) exist before capitalism https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-difference-between-capitalist-system-and-free-market-system.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-differe...

bakuninsbart 5y ago

It depends on what you mean by crackdown. On capitalism? Yes, and they've been really clear about it. China still has the official plan to introduce socialism by 2050, capitalist freedoms were never meant to be permanent. Now by 2050, the CCP is also supposed to be merely taking a backseat roll and the society will be equal and free. I think that's the contentious point within the CCP. Xi is part of the hardline left within the party, who is scared of losing to much influence to capitalists. He is naturally allied with CCP members who want more hard power. Lastly he's also almost certainly a social conservative, as are many of the current people in the leadership. Xi was sent to hard labor in the countryside as a youth, and then went on to pretty strict education. He sees younger people today as weak and fun-seeking and that doesn't sit well with him and the other bigwigs. (This is all my own conjecture, take it with a grain of salt)

justicezyx 5y ago
> China still has the official plan to introduce socialism by 2050 Where did you get this? Socialism is installed in China in 1960s, as we were told in text book. If there was such a plan to start socialism in China in 2050, that must be invented after 2008 after I left China. As for what is really socialism, the definitions I see so far are as colorful as capitalism. You might be referring some definition of socialism you saw from Chinese source, or some translated sources? It's becoming more and more clear that China is more of a political imagination for venting, at least on HN.
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Indeed, translations change a lot, and phrasing also changed over time within China, but you are right to call me out on being imprecise. In german we usually differentiate between socialistic and socialist with the former being the movement working on becoming the second. Still, Marx was already talking about the difference between "lower" communism, socialist mode of production, and "final" communism, the communist society. Mao said China was in the initial stage of socialism, but didn't really explain what that meant. This was then built on by his successors.[1] This article goes into a bit of detail on the current plan, which is now to reach the final state of socialism by 2050.[2] This has been a key aspect of internal CPC ideology since the 70s, so I'm not sure what you consider "venting". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism [2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3_4 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-9833-3_...

president 5y ago

I don't think there is any plan other than use any tool available to maintain power and control.