What's the best classification for China's economy post Deng Xiaoping...

state capitalist. the ties to maoist past are used to prop up their claims to legitimacy. not that there is a real challenger to that anyways, but it still a good habit to pay hommage to their revolutionary past.

even the danwei are probably on the way out in the context of this new era of chinese economics, just doesn't make sense anymore IMO.

as to what deng said, it being "socialism with chinese characteristics". that made a lot of sense in deng's time with his credentials and the continued existence of the old-guard revolutionaries, but i really wonder how things will go as they(PRC leadership) seem to be increasingly be made up of technocrats with backgrounds in economics and engineering than the older revolutionary and to an extent military backgrounds. what i am getting at is that while someone like deng may have truly believed in what he said, to what extent will coming generations of chinese leadership believe in it? xi jinping grew up in the chaos of the culture revolution, but of his heir, and the one after that?

no, you've outed yourself as one already, sorry. Also, I said nothing about a university.

Maoist China still helped pull the majority of Chinese out of poverty, maintained 5-6% growth rates, doubled life expectancy and industrialised an enormously agricultural nation despite both America and the Soviet Union telling Mao it was impossible.

Most Chinese are on the fence about Mao saying that they know he was terrible and caused great amounts of death and suffering but his achievements for paving the way for Deng can't be understated.

Xi has repeatedly shown he is trying to keep the Maoist elements. Just as he got in it was expected that he would start to scale back the SOE's and eventually removed them. Lately he's done everything but. He's strengthened their powers and increased funding to them. His rhetoric is also returning back to a long time ago when Hu Jintao would all but avoid it.

>Proceeds to tankie post like an ass hurt chink

Fascist took over China, deal with it

I'm not left wing.

a while back i watched a series of interviews with chinese peasants who remembered life before and after the revolution. one said something that stood out to me

>before the revolution, we had no pigs. after the revolution we had two pigs!

what i am saying here is that he may have helped pull the majority of chinese out of dire poverty but it was only to slightly less poverty. they were still absolutely, incredibly poor. it took deng to really change things. in this context it ain't much of an accomplishment for mao.

IIRC the soviets didn't tell mao industrializing china would impossible because it was agricultural(fucking soviets did it themselves), but they were telling mao to cool it on his insanely overambitious 5-year plans. he told them to fuck off and launched them into the great leap forward, we all know how that turned out.

as to him "paving the way for deng", i guess he did so by completely and thoroughly discrediting both radical command economics and constant revolutionary struggle as a societal norm. really not sure abject failure can be considered an "achievement".

That's some great anecdotal evidence.

Yes but you have to understand that where Mao brought them from was 10x worse. Peasants under the Qing and then under the warlords lived much more terrible lives then they did under Mao and you have to start somewhere especially when the people you find yourself ruling are INCREDIBLY poor.

I'm not discounting what Deng did, so don't act all belligerent, but to dismiss Mao's contributions to the development of China is come off as ignorant on the subject.

yes the peasants were significantly worse off under the late qing, the warlords and the japanese. no doubt. but is an improvement in their lot in life the result of a prolonged peace, or of mao's interventions? every time he no longer had to compromise disaster followed shortly.

i'm not trying to come off as belligerent and much more knowledgeable about china before 1950 which likely biases me, but the differences in mao's body of work before and after say the early 1950s is extremely stark to me. by the mid 1960s it seemed like his primary concern with staying in power.

So what do you think fascism is then?

Literally just capitalism

What is this "prolonged" peace you're talking of?

Concerns with staying in power is the underlying theme of every single CCP leader. Mao had very little to fear outside of his close circle. By 1953 Mao was untouchable and he held very favourable views with the public.

You have to keep in mind that China was in such a state that if it weren't for what Mao did in industrialising China then Deng would have had zero to work with.

Also the Soviets were much more industrial than the Chinese and this is evident in the fact that the Russian revolution started in the factories and the cities where the bulk of the population lived and the Maoist revolution begun in the fields where the bulk of the Chinese population lived.

"""Socialism""" with chinese characteristics

Care to share the documentary user?

While I'm iffy about China being fascist, what that guy described pretty much sums it up.

I talked to a Chinese person once. They explained that they current system is still communist, but just in the "second stage" before true communism. Essentially, they're being hypercapitalist right now to pave the way for a fully communist society. You know how Marx explicitly stated that communism could only truly be achieved in a western capitalist society, but the only successful communist revolutions occurred in agrarian countries like Russia or China? The current Chinese party line is that they began in the "first stage of communism" (agrarianism) and attempted to jump directly to the "third stage" (full communism) with disastrous results. Because of that, they've decided to go through the "second stage" (capitalism) before trying again. It helped me understand why the Chinese government keeps insisting that they're "communist". despite embracing capitalism.

*their current system

>Muh racial domination.
>Muh genocide of minorities.
>For some reason the other shitloads of minorities are living normally like the Hmongs, Mongols, Hui, and whatnot.
Xinjiang and Tibet are under military supervision because of rebellious shits in those areas. As for the "colonists" they're there because hidebound Tibetans and Uyghurs cant do modern shit themselves.

seems like a great way to justify the party elite robbing the country blind and laundering all of the money via Vancouver real estate

Sounds like they just regurgitated what they were taught in social studies (ccp approved).

I'm under no illusions about the true nature of China's system, my family had to flee the country in the 50's. I just think it's interesting to observe what kind of bullshit propaganda justifies it. You realize that it makes perfect sense to normies who don't care about history and economics and just want to get good grades. They never question the propaganda they're fed, because it makes sense to them and they aren't interested in digging deeper.

It's pro-entrepreneur and pro-business, which some people confuse for capitalist. But it isn't more capitalist. Capitalism is based on ownership and property rights. The state owns a share of all significant businesses in China. There are regulations in China, just not the kind of labor and market regulations you find in developed capitalists states. The regulations are about making sure the Party has the reigns over the flow of money and capital, and that you don't just flee the country with all the capital you built up in China, although many are still rich enough to use their personal funds to send their children to settle abroad, China banks on the fact that they will continue doing business with China, and China profits in the end.

China is very protectionist. They do not let the multinationals get the better of them, they use the multinationals. You hear about the stories where you have to move to China to compete, but if you move to China, China starts copying you and your tech. China rigs the system to win.

It really is state-capitalist, the state does what it can to accumulate control over capital. It's certainly not cult of labor Soviet though, nor is it a Western welfare state. You might almost consider China merchantilist.

Isn't there a growing Maoist revival in the more rural parts of the country?

Some tankies actually consider China ripe for a "real" socialist revolution.

Mercantilism.

sounds like they learned from the Qing desu

That's just a meme. Having actually been there, I've never met a people more concerned with squeezing every yuan out of everything and scamming everyone else so they can live in a mansion and turn half of their body into silicone. Truly the Jews of the Orient.

>Xinjiang and Tibet are under military supervision because of rebellious shits in those areas. As for the "colonists" they're there because hidebound Tibetans and Uyghurs cant do modern shit themselves.

Sounds like colonialism to me senpai.

>Most Chinese are on the fence about Mao saying that they know he was terrible and caused great amounts of death and suffering but his achievements for paving the way for Deng can't be understated.

You know, I've seen you make this claim in other threads and what I want to ask is, why does Mao deserve most of the credit for all the achievements of the post-1949, pre-Deng era?

I admit that Mao was a brilliant guerilla leader and deserves credit for unifying the country more than Chiang Kaishek ever did. However, Mao disrupted modernization by continuously launching mass movements after 1949. I'd say that all the credit should go to people like Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Deng, etc. who were trying to run a country while Mao was playing revolutionary.

When I see people defend Mao, it gives me the feeling that some Chinese think that all the achievements of the post-1949 era are invalidated if Mao is repudiated. But they're not, it just means that other people deserve credit. You can honor Mao as a military leader while praising other leader, just like how the US praises Washington as a general while simultaneously praising other "Founding Fathers".

Capitalist. Right now, China is more capitalist than the US (cause they don't give a fuck about labor laws or OSHA or starving miners in Africa)

>economic system

kek

Tibet should be grateful it has China. You really think those mountainous monks could live or defend themselves? They'd just as soon be Russian.

>Manchuria should be grateful it has Japan. You really think those peasant Chinks could live or defend themselves? They'd just as soon be Russian.

Partially laissez faire capitalism, partially state capitalism. "Socialist market economy" is just a meme name.

Im not sure if youre being ironic or not. August storm?

>i dont understand what the words socialism and capitalism means and think capitalism means business and markets, and socialism means equality

I'I just pointing out that your justifications for China ruling Tibet could also be made by Japan for ruling Manchuria, or by literally any other colonial power.

Talking specifically about Manchuria, the Japanese could have made that claim prior to August Storm by pointing out how the Russians had de facto control over Manchuria prior to the Japanese establishing Manchuko due to the concessions Russians received from the Far Eastern Railway and the amount of Russians living there.

Also, how good of a job did China do protecting Tibet from the British in 1904?

State capitalism

ehhhhhmmmm

go on?

I'm just pointing out that your justifications for China ruling Tibet could also be made by Japan for ruling Manchuria, or by literally any other colonial power.

Talking specifically about Manchuria, the Japanese could have made that claim prior to August Storm by pointing out how the Russians had de facto control over Manchuria prior to the Japanese establishing Manchuko due to the concessions Russians received for the Chinese Eastern Railway and the amount of Russians living there.

Also, how good of a job did China do protecting Tibet from the British in 1904?

In what regard we can call PRC socialist?

>>Government's sole goals are racial triumph
>China

What? Han aren't even a race. The Hui people, who the CCP (and KMT) love, are literally Han muslims.

[Citation needed]

You are wrong as fuck by the way.

He probably means ethnicity. calling it rage just makes it seem more scandalous, never mind that all east asian nations are HEAVILY oriented around their ethnicity

No he really doesn't.

Monetary tranfers to the farmers is a huge facet of China's society. That is very much not fascist.

If fascist = big government, then I guess every developed nation is fascist.

Chinese money in Vancouver is only 15% of all foreign investment there. India is just as high, which makes this meme a meme.

Which makes it wrong? Some in the CCP believe in communism. Some believe it'll always be capitalist. Most just don't care.

>maintained 5-6% growth rates
Big growth rates can also be seen today in brutal African dictatorships. When you are at the bottom, you have a lot of room to grow.

Not the same guy, but here's some citations:

english.cri.cn/12394/2016/10/27/3521s943545.htm
globaltimes.cn/content/1010778.shtml

When you have party media referring to Xi Jinping as the "core leader" of the CPC, how is that not an indication that he's undermining the principle of collective rule that's been in place ever since Mao died?

And when Xi Jinping is emphasizing the importance of SOEs and party leadership of them, how is that not an indication that he's not going to do away with SOEs?

No.

The Maoist revival guy (from Chongqing) got removed in 2012 by the CCP for worshipping Mao too much AND being corrupt as fuck.

>I'I just pointing out that your justifications for China ruling Tibet could also be made by Japan for ruling Manchuria,

Except Manchuria was actually one of the richest parts of China while Tibet literally had religiously-governened slaves until 1950.

Mainly for being corrupt as fuck though. He probably would have ended up on the standing commmittee if it hadn't gotten out that his wife had killed that British guy.

>I'I just pointing out that your justifications for China ruling Tibet could also be made by Japan for ruling Manchuria,

Except Manchuria 1931 and Tibet 1950 were an order of magnitude different in development

>Tibet literally had religiously-governened slaves until 1950.

Meme history. Tibetan society prior to 1959 was very unequal, but whether or not it constitutes serfdom is an ongoing debate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

Manchuria was only rich because it was industrialized by the Russians and Japanese. Once China got its shit together and started developing its economy under Deng, the coastal cities quickly surpassed the northeast, and now the northeast is basically China's rust belt.

>When you have party media referring to Xi Jinping as the "core leader" of the CPC, how is that not an indication that he's undermining the principle of collective rule that's been in place ever since Mao died?
1. Deng and Jiang were "core".
"Core leader" is not a term used so I don't know where you got that.
2. Read the literal next line of the statement. It states THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP WILL BE UPHELD BY ALL PARTIES AND INDIVIDUALS.
3. Every political analyst says that "core" does not = Maoism. Mao had many other titles, and ACTUAL power.

>And when Xi Jinping is emphasizing the importance of SOEs and party leadership of them, how is that not an indication that he's not going to do away with SOEs?
1. When did he indicate he was getting rid of them?
2. How is an SOE = Maoism ?
3. The 2013 Plenum where they announced SOE reform stated REFORM THE STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES. Not get rid of them or weaken them as you claim.

You are just one of many failed China "analysts" who reads TE or FT clickbait and not actual evidence based analysis.

The Maoist protests in 2012-2013 were supressed user.

In the meantime
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-01/nine-charts-that-show-china-s-economy-is-on-fire

Maybe Xi knows what he is doing???

>Meme history.
How so? Because there is disagreement on the difference between a slave and a serf?

>Tibetan society prior to 1959 was very unequal, but whether or not it constitutes serfdom is an ongoing debate.
So... Not meme history. I take one stance, other historians take another. Either way EXTREME serfdom or slavery is still backwards as fuck and an injustice.

>Manchuria was only rich because it was industrialized by the Russians and Japanese.
1. Get your chronology right.
2. Russia and Japan only got invovled in Manchuria in the 1920's onwards.
3. Manchuria was richer than Beijing province or Canton in 1900. Only Shanghai and Jiangsu were more developed.

>Tibet literally handed China its freedom because it cant fight for shit against the Gurkhas.
>Wants out when China hit hard times.
Sounds like ungratefulness to me.

Xinjiang was a case of colonization though, yeah.

>How so? Because there is disagreement on the difference between a slave and a serf?

No, because it's debated whether or not "serfdom" is an accurate description of Tibetan society and if the relationship Tibetan peasants had with Tibetan monasteries and aristocracy constitutes "serfdom".

>So... Not meme history. I take one stance, other historians take another.

Except it's pretty much meme history in China since the Chinese government refuses to acknowledge the nuance and just portrays all of Tibetan society prior to 1959 as "hell on earth"

>Either way EXTREME serfdom or slavery is still backwards as fuck and an injustice.

Invading a country which had declared independence, driving thousands into exile, sending people to forced labor camps, bombing monasteries, surpressing Tibetan's right to self-determination and their religious beliefs, and allowing Han Chinese migrants to economically marginalizing the Tibetans in their own homeland is also an injustice.

China's justifying its policies in Tibet by claiming the Tibetans are "backward" and that there were incapable of "liberating" themselves is no different from all the colonialist crap we've heard before from other nations.

>1. Get your chronology right. 2. Russia and Japan only got invovled in Manchuria in the 1920's onwards.

"In 1896 China granted a construction concession through northern Inner Manchuria under the supervision of Vice Minister of Public Works Xu Jingcheng. Work on the CER began in July 1897 along the line Tarskaya (east of Chita) – Hailar – Harbin – Nikolsk-Ussuriski, and accelerated drastically after Russia concluded a 25-year lease of Liaodong from China in 1898".
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Eastern_Railway

IT DOESNT MATTER IF THE CAT IS BLACK OR WHITE. WHAT MATTERS IS IT CATCHES MICE.

>Qing Empire defends Tibet from the Gurkhas, fails to defend Tibet from the British 200 years later
>Tibetans and Mongolians want out when Han Chinese revolutionaries abolish a system which had benefited them, and the rest of the empire turns into a giant Somalia.

Sounds pretty understandable to me.

You can't, but it's not capitalist either. It's pro-business statist, it occupies similar territory with fascist hybrid systems rather than being capitalist.

#
Again, I'm not the first guy you replied to. I never said that Xi Jinping is reviving "Maoism" and I agree that's an exaggeration. I merely said that Xi Jinping is undermining collective rule.

>Deng and Jiang were "core". "Core leader" is not a term used so I don't know where you got that.

It's literally in the headline of the article. And was Hu Jintao ever referred to as a "core"?

>Read the literal next line of the statement. It states THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP WILL BE UPHELD BY ALL PARTIES AND INDIVIDUALS.

And the Chinese constitution says that freedom of speech is protected. Proclaiming that you're going to uphold collective leadership means shit when there's evidence to the contrary. We could also look at how Xi Jinping has pledged to reduce the size of the Youth League as evidence that he's consolidating power at the expense of other factions since the Youth League was where many of his rivals started out.

>Every political analyst says that "core" does not = Maoism.

What political analysts?

>How is an SOE = Maoism?

I never said it was "Maoism" but strengthening the SOEs flies in the face of his stated goal of reforming the Chinese economy since the SOEs strangle the private sector and are horribly inefficient compared to private companies in China.

>The 2013 Plenum where they announced SOE reform stated REFORM THE STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES. Not get rid of them or weaken them as you claim.

So why is strengthening them considered "reform" when the trend since the end of the Mao era has been the opposite?

>You are just one of many failed China "analysts" who reads TE or FT clickbait and not actual evidence based analysis.

And you're just one of many Chinese who believes the world is obligated to love China, and can only cry about "anti-China" media in response to criticism.

>China is far more capitalistic than America. There are far fewer restrictions on private companies in China than in America
Capitalism is a system based on the rule of law, with aspects like a good functioning property law. What you describe is not a capitalistic society, but something that has more to do with anarchism. A market needs to be checked by law in order to be a healthy functioning market (laws for the protection of IP, laws that prevent the creation of a monopoly etc). China is notorioious for completely lacking in all these regulative aspects. I wouldn't call them a capitalistic society, more an anarchistic state if I have to follow your description of them

...

You literally have to pay to go to school in China.

It's the least communist country on earth.

Fascist

>State integration with the economy in the form of state corporations and the direction of nominally private corporations to serve the needs of the state.
>Hyper-Nationalism
>Provision for private property, though bound to the needs of the state.
>The state is the people, the people is the state, and there is nothing outside the state.
>Expansionism and a desire to reach at least limited autarky if full autarky isn't possible.
>Revanchism - The proclamation of the end of the "Century of Humiliation" and the national drive to return China to its formal and "rightful" place as the 1st ranked nation of Asia if not the world.
>Cult of personality in Mao Zedong. Admittedly he's dead and it's not as powerful. It does seem to have led to a smoother or more stable transfer of power however.

Shits Fascist as fuck.

t. Fascist

What country are you from, and what kind of fascism do you want for your country user?

Canadian. The closest would be a mix of Oswald Mosely and Mussolini in terms of political system and national goals, with a greater influence of National Socialism on the economic and social policies side.

Honestly, I'm still working out a bunch of the details, and it hasn't yet formed itself into a total and coherent political ideology and economic system. Hopefully I will have the book finished and published within a few years.

It seems like you know your shit so your analysis of China as a fascist state checks out. Good luck on your book user!

>It's pro-business statist
So capitalist except with large role of the state?

Thanks!

[spoiler]Seriously though, replace jews with corporations and that video is chilling. [/spoiler]

Fug. Veeky Forums doesn't allow audio webms outside of gif it seems. So disregard the spoilered part.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this simply isn't true - there are many 'thinking' people in China who believe, to varying extents, that despite the unmitigated disaster of the Great Leap Forward and the (somewhat defensible) Cultural Revolution, Mao did many things that were ultimately beneficial in the long term for China.

>(somewhat defensible) Cultural Revolution,

>Mao launches a mass movement as an excuse to purge the only competent people in the CCP such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping
>Creates Red Guards which persecuted countless people, smashed countless historical relics, and started near civil wars in numerous cities over which Red Guard faction loved Mao more
>Disrupts scientific research by first persecuting intellectuals, and then sending all intellectuals and students to the countryside to shovel shit for 7 years instead of using their skills to their full potential for the country
>Authorizes the Gang of Four to stop people from publicly mourning based Zhou Enlai

How can this possibly be defended?

And many "thinking people" in China consider Mao to be an irredeemable bastard who disrupted China's modernization for 30 years.

Mao's legacy is clearly still being debated amongst Chinese people. He's not simply "70% good, 30% bad" as the CCP claims, you can't claim that most Chinese feel he was good for the country in the long-term, and I can't claim the majority of Chinese hate him either.

This nigga knows.

Will there be another tianamen square massacre?

Probably not

Capitalist means private ownership of capital. China is not that capitalist. Capitalist does not mean individualist and socialist doesn't mean collectivist.

yes. I think there will be in the next 20 years.

>5-6% growth rates
That's pathetically small for a country undergoing industrialization, really that number alone shows how laughably incompetent Mao was.

Are you retarded?

It's Chinese feudal capitalism. Like the Song dynasty before getting MONGOLED.com, and instead of a ruling house and petty nobility there is the CCP.

>Song Dynasty
>Feudal
>Capitalist.
Wat.

Notice how growth suddenly explodes as soon as Mao dies.

it can't. only the most assblasted retarded can defend it. there literally was no point to doing it other than mao crushing all perceived opposition. that's it.

Not comparable since no data lol, but this is what growth countries starting from 0 experience.