#xiaoping theory

[william-r-melich]

Tik Tok Bill/HR 7521 - 03/16/2024

Bill HR 7521 passed 3 days ago in the house of representatives by a vote of 352 - 65. If this bill passes in the Senate, which looks likely, Joe Biden said he will sign it, which will purportedly ban Tik Tok. It wouldn't really ban it, but what it will do is force Byte Dance, the Chinese company that owns Tik Tok, to divest by providing a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divesture. In other words, they would have to sell it. They would also have to shut down their internet hosting service. Someone in the U.S. would buy it. I've been on the fence with this one as well with whether or not Biden will remain on the ticket. After reading a portion of the bill I saw a loophole regarding what can be done with a foreign person. Donald Trump, who back in 2020 wanted to ban Tik Tok, he's now against banning it. He said that banning Tik Tok would give the government too much power and would make Facebook more of a monopoly. I sure hope his 180-degree shift wasn't partly made because he has a big campaign donor from Tik Tok. Elon Musk is against it. He thinks it will lead to the government having too much control of wording and censorship on all media platforms. He argues that it doesn't just involve foreign adversaries. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie on X posted this: "The president will be given the power to ban WEB SITES, not just Apps.--"The person breaking the new law is deemed to be the U.S. (or offshore) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE or App Store, not the 'foreign adversary.' " The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) controls what content is allowed on Tik Toc, and the version that is used in China is very different to what's allowed on it outside of China, like here in the U.S. In China they're teaching their children strict discipline and loyalty to the CCP without other harmful content, brainwashing them into their collectivist ideologies. Outside of China they are allowing and promoting content that encourages self-harm and suicide. The big concern in Congress is that the CCP is using the platform to collect as much personal data as they can to be later used against us for nefarious reasons.

Bytedance is the parent company running Tik Toc, and it's former CEO, Zhang Yiming, in 2018 wrote an open public letter of apology to the CCP's headquarters. He was in trouble for not directing his tech companies to push the party's communist agenda far enough, including for what they termed as Xi Jinping thought. Here's some of that letter translated in English:

"I sincerely apologize to regulators, our users and colleagues. I have been in a state of guilt and remorse since I received the notice from the regulatory authority yesterday afternoon and stayed up all night."

"Toutino will permanently shut down the app and the Wechat account of Neihan Duanzi. The product has gone astray, posting content that goes against socialist core values. It's all on me. I accept all the punishment since it failed to direct public opinion in the right way."

"I blame myself for failing to live up to the guidance and expectations of the authorities. In the past few years, the authorities have given us a lot of guidance and help, but I failed to understand properly and to correct properly in the past that resulted in the repercussions today."

"I blame myself for failing the support and trust of our users. We one-sidedly focused on growth and scale without paying timely attention to quality and responsibility of guiding users to obtain positive information. We have failed to undertake corporate social responsibility, and lack emphasis and understanding of our roles in carry forward the positive energy, and guide public opinion properly."

"I reflect that the deep-seated problems for the company are: a weak understanding of the 'four consciousness,' a lack of socialist core values, and a biased guidance of public opinion. 'In the past, we have placed too much emphasis on the role of technology, and failed to realize that socialist core values are the prerequisite to technology. We need to spread positive messages in line with the requirements of the times while respecting public order and good practice.' "

The "four consciousness," to which he referred is described in the following CCP directive as translated into English; CCP Central Committee Publishers Plan for Deepening the Reform of Party and State Agencies. March 18, 2021:

"To deepen reform of the Party and state agencies at this new historical turning point, we must comprehensively implement the Spirit of the 19th Party Congress and persist in taking Marxism -- Leninism, Ma Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Important Thinking of the 'Three Represents,' the Scientific Development Concept, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guide. We must firmly establish political consciousness, consciousness of the big picture, consciousness of the core leadership, and consciousness of falling in line with party directives. We must resolutely maintain the authority and centralized unified leadership of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core. We must adapt to the development requirements of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, persist in the general principle of seeking progress while maintaining stability, and adhere to the proper direction of reform. We must persist in being people-centered, and persist in comprehensively ruling the country according to law."

It seems clear to me that the CCP wants to dominate the world and control how everyone thinks. We can't let that happen. The harmful content on Tik Tok can be found on some of the other platforms, but apparently on Tik Tok it's been more harmful and addictive to kids. Amnesty International 2 reports: "Driven into the Darkness: How Tik Tok Encourages Self-harm and Suicidal Ideation and the I Feel Exposed: Caught in Tik Tok's Surveillance Web - highlight the abuses experienced by children and young people using Tik Tok Outside of China. Between 3 and 20 minutes into our manual research, more than half of the videos in the 'For You' feed were related to mental health struggles with multiple recommended videos in a single hour romanticizing, normalizing or encouraging suicide."

Here's how a portion of the Tik Tok bill reads - HR 7521:

(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that -- (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of -- (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annes and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divesture. (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY, -- The term "foreign adversary country" means a country specified with respect to a covered company or other entity is -- (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country. (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in "subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) (B). (2) Covered Company -- (A) IN GENERAL -- The term "covered company" means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, or augmented or immersive technology application.

The loophole I see is that there are people here from China that are legal to work and live here (green card) and who have a residence in China. The President (Joe Biden) could divest any website or app operated by a company with such a person in its employ from China with a green card who happens to own at least 20% of that company. I haven't read through the entire bill, nor am I an expert on Congressional bills or policies, but there might be other loopholes to be found. Given all that I have considered on this, I think divesting Tik Tok is a good idea, but only with no loopholes or wiggle room. I don't trust the government, their too giddy about this and I suspect they may have something up their sleeves. Next to our own ability to destroy ourselves from within, I think China is our biggest threat. This is serious stuff and we're in some very dangerous situations. We've got to get this right and get the right leader in the White House, which, in my humble opinion, is Donald J. Trump.

[max1461]

I've said this before but Deng Xiaoping Theory is as good a self-help philosophy as it is a political philosophy. Better than whatever Jordan Peterson is selling.

[libertineangel]

Been meaning to read the Red Sails article China Has Billionaires for ages 'cause it's a topic I still struggle to accept with my present grasp of Marxism, finally got to it but to be honest I'm pretty underwhelmed, much as this may disappoint my more orthodox mutuals

Maybe I'm just not properly processing it, that is distinctly possible considering I have had like two hours' sleep at most in the last 27 hours, but much of it felt kinda meandering and varyingly relevant - all the stuff about capital as automatic subject, for example, seems an interesting subtlety of theory to explore but highly tangential at best to that section's overall point of "China's DotP remains and keeps its hand on the tiller of bourgeois enterprises", a point essentially repeated in the next section with similar amounts of vaguely-connected preamble - before arguing that it's all a matter of patience, that strong public services are an acceptable tradeoff for enormous wealth inequality, and concluding with "I don't intend to actually answer the titular issue, I don't really know, stop questioning China and work on your own situation"

And like sure, obviously I don't expect communism to be built overnight, I recognise the enormity of the task at hand, but like we all know that billionaires can only exist on the backs of countless people being dreadfully exploited every day of their lives, even social democrats understand that by now - how much patience should they be expected to have? The existence of bourgeois elements in a socialist society is one thing, I recognise the importance of Deng Xiaoping Thought in stabilising China in the wake of the Cultural Revolution and rapidly building its productive forces just as the NEP did the same after the Russian Civil War, but the existence of billionaires hinges on a scale of exploitation I struggle to see as necessary, a level of wealth inequality I struggle to justify.

I know there's been a tremendous effort to eradicate poverty in the last decade, and if its statistics are accurate then it's an admirable achievement, but like couldn't all those people have had food & shelter even sooner if there were less tolerance for hoarding unimaginable wealth?

[txttletale]

Idk if anyone asked this but what should I read first to understand Deng Xiaoping theory i.e. on the primary stage of socialism, socialism with Chinese characteristics

i actually have no idea! the history and politics of the PRC is one of my biggest blindspots as far as my knowledge / reading base goes. if any of my mutuals or followers has a good answer for xollii feel free to leave it here :)

[mariacallous]

Is China a part of the global south?

Beijing certainly thinks so. For instance, at the recently concluded Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, a conference held every three years between China and African leaders, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke of the global south’s “shared path toward modernization.” China has set up a development fund containing the term “South-South.” And Foreign Minister Wang Yi has also explicitly stated more than once that China is and will always be a member of the global south.

Though the terms used have changed over time, China’s rhetorical embrace of the developing world is not exactly new. Its roots go back to the early years of Chinese Communist Party rule. After the revolutionary fervor of the early 1950s subsided somewhat, China participated in the historic 1955 Bandung Conference that brought Asian and African leaders from recently decolonized countries together in a common front against global inequities. In 1964, Premier Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong’s righthand man, formulated China’s Eight Principles for Economic Aid and Technical Assistance to Other Countries. Mao’s own worldview defined two “intermediate zones” between the United States and the Soviet Union, the latter zone comprising Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The intermediate zones framing later morphed into the Three Worlds theory in 1974. In a conversation with Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda, Mao defined the “Third World” as including Africa, Latin America, and all of Asia, except Japan. This brief reference was elaborated on at length in a famous speech by Deng Xiaoping to the U.N. General Assembly in the same year, in which he said: “China belongs to the Third World.”

Mao, like many of his contemporaries, defined the Third World in predominantly economic and postcolonial terms. The framing made sense in the 1970s, when China was among the world’s poorer countries. The average Chinese lived no better, and in some cases worse, than the wide swath of recently decolonized countries.

Fast-forward to today, and much has changed. A different understanding of the meta-region stretching from Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands is needed—and in turn, China’s place within it must be reconsidered.

In this meta-region, 45 states that the United Nations has dubbed “least developed countries” remain mired in poverty and, in some cases, state failure. But about 80 others have grown substantially. Many, especially in Asia, made globalization and capitalism their own and turbocharged growth with corresponding social investments. They industrialized, integrated with the global economy, and built respectable levels of domestic infrastructure.

China itself is among the biggest beneficiaries of this transformation—from a country that experienced state-induced famines during the disastrous 1958-62 Great Leap Forward to now a highly industrialized, upper-middle-income country.

As economies diverge and the colonial era recedes into the past, the term “global south” has gained currency, especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is best described as a “geopolitical fact,” a vast middle that sits outside the great-power system made up of the three great powers and core U.S. allies in Europe, East Asia, and Australasia. The “rest” have achieved varied levels of economic and social development but remain outside the select club of core alliances and global rulemaking. By definition, therefore, a great power cannot be a part of the global south.

China’s sheer size; high levels of GDP, trade, investment, and increasingly innovation; and successful military modernization mean that it now qualifies as a great power. It has joined Russia and the United States in this select category—though the United States is clearly the most powerful of the three and Russia barely makes the grade.

China is indeed working closely with a few global south states on major issues, for example with Brazil on a Ukraine peace plan, and as a part of the BRICS grouping. But Beijing’s global south rhetoric, while drawing on a real shared history, is today a stratagem, designed to win influence among the developing world and further its aims of influencing the global order.  If anything, China’s emergence as a great power opens the door for a divergence from the global south on three important fronts: trade and investment, climate, and geopolitics.

Divides on trade are already visible. Middle-income global south countries such as Indonesia and Chile have recently slapped tariffs on Chinese imports as China has increasingly shifted into advanced manufacturing. Jakarta has just banned a giant Chinese online retailer, citing threats to local businesses. Mexico wants to reduce Chinese imports in its supply chain. Concerns over local trade have also triggered actions against Chinese imports in Brazil.

Meanwhile, Beijing’s flagship investment program, the Belt and Road Initiative, has become much smaller and more targeted of late, with spending falling off sharply as a slowing China focuses more at home. China is also on the “other side” when it comes to negotiating debt relief with poorer states in the G-20’s Common Framework, an odd position for a nation that claims to still be developing.

China and the global south have historically cooperated closely on climate change in the G-77+China coalition. They routinely push the U.N. principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) and legitimately demand much greater climate finance commitments from wealthy states. The CBDR principle puts the onus on financing the energy transition on the global north, since wealthy countries have been the dominant contributors to destructive climate change due to their much larger cumulative carbon emissions. Unsurprisingly, Washington tends to minimize or ignore CBDR in climate negotiations.

But China’s own emissions have risen to the point that it has itself become a major contributor to not only annual but also historical emissions. With 14.7 percent of the global share, China now ranks third in cumulative emissions since 1750, not far behind the United States and the European Union. (The leading global south emitter, India, comes in much lower at nearly 3.4 percent.) The CBDR principle puts China on the side of wealthy states much more than developing countries.

China could justifiably point to its already significant efforts as a source of climate finance. But it will resist what should be a logical shift in its status and oppose formally taking on climate finance targets.

China and the global south may also yet diverge on the broader geopolitical plane. Highly militarized U.S.-China competition can destabilize the global order and risk major conflict; it is therefore not in the global south’s interests. Any actions by Beijing contributing to regional or global destabilization will not be welcomed in the global south. (The same is true for any such behavior by Washington.)

But China’s relative weakness compared with the United States, and an economic slowdown at home, also creates incentives for a revived G-2 in order to craft updated rules of global governance. Xi seemed to propose exactly this last year.

Washington is currently in no mood to engage in such a conversation with Beijing due to China’s perceived threat to its global primacy, sharp differences over Taiwan, and the Russia-Ukraine war. But as planetary challenges multiply, and as China closes the gap in strategic innovation despite its economic crunch, both sides may be incentivized toward deeper, though sectoral, cooperation—perhaps after a nasty crisis that stops short of war.

Any new, future G-2, even if partial, would sit uneasily with most of the global south, as the latter’s demands might not be factored in a backroom deal between the two most powerful states in the international system. The very act of excluding these states from such a conversation would also rankle. The net effect would be to widen their divide with Beijing.

China could bridge its growing gap with the global south by being more proactive on issues such as debt, climate, and trade and refraining from provocative actions in theaters such as the South China Sea. Continuing U.S. failures that cost the lives of innocents (such as in the Middle East escalation) or U.S. over-militarization in Asia could also ensure China remains attractive in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

While Beijing has traditionally enjoyed a natural convergence with the global south, the future looks a lot more complicated.

[economy-and-ethics]

INTRODUCTION

Harvey defines Neoliberalism as a theory which asserts that human well being is best achieved by freeing individual entrepreneurial freedoms with a framework of strong private property rights, free markets and free trade. The state (government) is limited to creating and ensuring (with force if necessary) these conditions. For example guranteeing the intergrity of money. State intervention (regulation) in markets is to be bare minimum cause they can be influenced by poweful groups.

"Neoliberalism values market exchange as ‘an ethic in

itself, capable of acting as a guide to all human action, and substi-

tuting for all previously held ethical beliefs’, it emphasizes the

significance of contractual relations in the marketplace. It holds

that the social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach

and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all

human action into the domain of the market."

The book's aim is to trace where Neo liberalism came from and how it became popular all over the world.

Ronald Reagan, Paul Volcker, Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher are the influential people who brought the ideology to center stage in the 1980's.

Neoliberalism is also called Reagan - Thatcherism sometimes.

[graceofgosh]

I side with mr house in a based deng xiaoping way not in a cringe ancho capitalist way

horseshoe theory real

[literaturereviewhelp]

The Chinese Cultural Revolution is believed to have been started byMao Zedong, who was the Communist Party of China’s Chairman. Mao’s aim was to preserve what he termed as the ‘true’ Communists ideology in China through purging traditional elements and remnants capitalists from the Chinese society. In early 1960s, Mao had been was in semi-seclusion and on the political sidelines. However, he started an offensive move to purify the party, after growing increasingly uneasy regarding what he strongly believed were the creeping antisocialists and capitalist tendencies in China. Taking the role of a hardened veteran cultural revolutionary who had managed to overcome the most severe adversities, he continued believing that the material incentives which were restored to the peasants as well as others were counterrevolutionary and were also corrupting the masses. His approach covered aspects such as new-democratic revolution, socialists’ construction and socialists’ revolution, building of the military strategy and revolutionary army, on tactics and policy, political and ideological work and cultural work, and party building. Mao Zedong has been single out as to have played a significant role during the China’s socialist transformation and new-democratic resolution. Despite some of the mistakes he did later in his regime, his Marxist-Leninist theory is still applicable in the current situation and used in solving new issues. In an effort to arrest what he referred to as capitalist tend, Mao come up with the Socialists Education Movement between 1962 and 1965, in which its main emphasis was to restore ideological purity, and reinforce revolutionary fervor into the government and party bureaucracies, as well as intensify class struggle (Wikipedia 1). At that point, there were internal disagreements, however, not for the sake of the movement but on the means of carrying it out. Mao went ahead to re-impose Maoist idea considering it as the dominant ideology of the Party. This brings out the traditional method of governance and the policies used by political parties in the traditional Chinese system of governance. The revolution ensured that Mao Zedong returned to power following the Great Leap Forward (Wikipedia 1). The movement greatly paralyzed the political system in China and significantly affected the nations socially and economically. By mid-1966, the campaign by Mao had turned into what came to be referred to as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the initial mass action to emerge against the CCP. Considering the intraparty Cultural Revolution opposition was evident. On the one side of the group led by Mao, receiving support from the PLA, and on the other side was another faction under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, which received much support from the regular party machine. Premier Zhou Enlai, while trying to remain loyal to Mao, tried to reconcile or to mediate the two factions (Wikipedia 1). Mao claimed that the bourgeois elements are the ones which infiltrated the society and the government and he intended to restore capitalism. This position assumed by Mao brings out his ideologies. He insisted that the revisionists should be removed even if it meant through violent class struggle bringing out the dictator part of Mao and the approaches used by leaders in the traditional China. Mao states that “the armed struggle and the two fronts are the two basic weapons that can be used to defeat the enemy”. He goes a head to day that the two applied with Party building, the make up the “three magic weapons” of the revolution (Comrade Mao Zedongs 1). Mao was influential as the China’s youth responded to his appeal and formed the Red Guard groups across the country. The movement then spread into the urban workers, the military, and lastly to the Communists Party leadership. It led to the widespread factional struggles across the nation. In the top leadership in China, it resulted to a mass purge of even the senior officials, including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi. It was during this period that the personality cult of Mao grew immensely. The activities of the Red Guard were promoted as a reflection of the policy of Mao of destroying the counterrevolutionary values and symbols that were outdated and rekindling revolutionary enthusiasm. Read the full article

[ebelal56-blog]

Historian Reveals GLOBAL Power Shifts From West to East

The West Cannot Stop the East: The Inevitable Shift of Power 1. European Rise (15th to early 20th Century) Key Forces: Age of Exploration (1400s–1600s): European nations like Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, and the Netherlands expanded globally through maritime exploration and colonization. Scientific Revolution & Enlightenment (1600s–1700s): Europe became the intellectual hub, pushing scientific knowledge, political theory, and rational thought. Industrial Revolution (1700s–1800s): Britain, followed by others, industrialized, gaining massive technological and economic power. Colonial Empires: Wealth and resources were extracted from colonies, fueling further European dominance. Result: Europe dominated global affairs economically, militarily, and culturally for centuries. But internal conflicts (WWI, WWII) drained their power. 2. American Rise (20th Century) Key Forces: WWI & WWII: The destruction of European infrastructure and economies after the wars, while the U.S. emerged stronger, becoming the "arsenal of democracy." Post-WWII Superpower: America rebuilt Europe (Marshall Plan), led global institutions (UN, World Bank, IMF), and countered Soviet influence. Technological and Cultural Dominance: From Silicon Valley to Hollywood, America led in innovation, media, and ideology. Economic Muscle: By mid-20th century, the U.S. had the world's largest economy, strongest military, and most influential currency. Result: The U.S. became the hegemonic power of the 20th century-defining global norms, economy, and politics. 3. Asian Rise – Japan (Late 20th Century) Key Forces: Post-War Reconstruction: After WWII, Japan rebuilt rapidly with U.S. support, emphasizing manufacturing excellence, discipline, and innovation. Economic Miracle: In the 1960s–80s, Japan became the world's second-largest economy, leading in automobiles, electronics, and precision engineering. Soft Power: Japanese culture (from anime to design aesthetics) began influencing the world. Limit: Japan's bubble burst in the 1990s, leading to stagnation-showing that economic miracles can plateau. 4. Asian Rise – China (21st Century) Key Forces: Reform and Opening (1978 onward): Deng Xiaoping transitioned China from Maoist isolation to a market-driven, export-based powerhouse. Manufacturing Hub: China became the world's factory-first on low-cost labor, now moving up the value chain (AI, EVs, semiconductors). Global Investment: Through the Belt and Road Initiative and aggressive infrastructure diplomacy, China is reshaping global geopolitics. Military Modernization: The PLA is now a serious regional (and growing global) force. Result: China is no longer rising-it's risen. It's challenging U.S. dominance economically, technologically, and geopolitically. The Cycle: A Natural Shift You're absolutely right-each transition is a response to internal strengths and external limitations. Europe couldn't contain America's rise after war, and America will struggle to contain Asia's rise as power centers shift eastward. This shift is not just about economics-it reflects: Demographic changes Technological diffusion Cultural realignments Multipolarity in global governance Implications: Deterrence has limits – Economic and technological progress can't be indefinitely blocked by force or policy. Power transitions are inevitable. Adjustment is wiser than resistance – Instead of trying to "stop" Asia's rise, nations should adapt, collaborate, and find new roles in a more multipolar world. Cycles don't end-they evolve – Just as Europe gave way to America, and America now to Asia, future shifts will continue. Perhaps Africa or Southeast Asia next? If you're thinking about this in terms of policy, investment, or worldview, the key takeaway is this: "History does not stand still. Power shifts are natural, and wisdom lies in preparing for the new equilibrium rather than clinging to the old one."

[clipartghosts]

XIAOPNG1.BMF: An illustrated portrait of Deng Xiaoping, former Chairman of the People’s Republic of China. It’s not a bad likeness of the Paramount Leader. In theory, Yìchén approves. But in practical terms, the special operative in Eleventh Bureau at the Ministry of State Security has some concerns. Yìchén opens a new document and begins taking notes.

[max1461]

Can you say more about Deng Xiaoping theory as self help? Or am I just failing to pick up on a joke here?

Bide your time and hide your power, it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice, crossing the river by feeling the stones

[lizardbytheriver]

I feel like Khrushchev if you're going to have a new form of Leninism, that avoids both Stalin and Trotsky's interpretations/expansions, you should at least write about your ideology and theories. The only books I see are either written by Western Authors (who love Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin but still decry him as an authoritarian) or about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even Deng Xiaoping had works talking about his ideology, and how's its still supposedly aligned with Marxism-Leninism. It seems most of the Marxist-Leninist theories, at this time, were coming from Castro, Tito, Allende, etc. and not from the Soviets.

[stevedeschaines]

Even though I haven’t voted for a Democrat in this century (did many times before), I wasn’t one of those who called them communists. It seemed like overkill.

Naive, yes.  Brainwashed, to a great degree (except for those who obviously profited from their power).  But “commies”?  Gimme a break.

And yet, watching the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, I had second thoughts.  Who were these drones applauding the same empty swill they had for years almost none of which had anything resembling a positive result?  Often, it was the reverse.

But did that matter? Not to them.

I am—to be clear—no particular fan of Republican rhetoric and propaganda, nor am I attracted to party line politics of any sort, but this convention seemed on the edge of an out-of-body “mass formation psychosis” experience à la Mattias Desmet, from both audience and speakers, that eerily approached the atmosphere of Leni Riefenstahl ’s documentary of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally (not exactly communist but close enough in its celebration of group think).

The times, they are indeed a’changin’ at an almost unfathomable clip—but am I exaggerating?

Maybe.  But even the scheduling of speakers at the DNC is beginning to resemble the shuffling of faces on a politburo rostrum with Presidents Biden and Obama being rendered nonpersons by not speaking until nearly 11:00 PM.  Biden is almost literally their Brezhnev, to be propped up and then escorted from the scene..

But if we are to ask whether today’s Democrats are a communist party we must first define the term communist that has become rather different in our era, though no less ominous and, in my view, potentially more successful globally.

Communism today is far from what Karl Marx envisioned sitting on his ample derriere in the library of the British Museum, not that his concept of the future was particularly accurate then. He predicted his paradise of “scientific socialism” would appear first in a modern industrial state like Germany but, not that long after his death, it began in a considerably more primitive Russia.

Although the Soviet Union became a substantial military power, it fell apart economically and quickly became totalitarian largely due to its adherence to Marx’s economic theories. Command economies don’t work, a message apparently lost on Kamala Harris.

This mistake was no longer repeated by Communist China, once Deng Xiaoping—of a cat can be black or white as long as it catches mice fame— rose to power starting in 1976, ironically two hundred years after our revolution.  Deng, responsible for the Tiananmen massacres, was as much a despot in his way as Mao Zedong, but did not adhere to Marxism with the über-religious fervor of Mao that allowed the Chairman to become history’s greatest mass murderer.

More Dengist, today’s China is somewhat different.  The despotism remains, a good deal of marxist rhetoric is employed for show or to keep the masses from getting untoward ideas,  but communism itself, even more ironically, has evolved into the most advanced, autocratic and perverse form of capitalism yet devised—”one party only” capitalism, you might call it, with the obvious benefits of the market available exclusively to party members.

Socialist economics might have its problems, but autocracy can really pay off.

Here is where it begins to align with today’s Democratic Party, which is not so distant, in essence, from the CCP, especially in aspiration. Sometimes I think, particularly among their leadership, they secretly envy the ChiComs for having evolved a perfect totalitarian system.  This could account, along with the obvious personal profit that accrued in many quarters, for their favoritism to China (from Biden to Tim Walz, and a host  others) that has also been shared, regrettably, by a somewhat smaller, though significant, percentage of Republicans.

China is, after all, the deepest of deep states.

Nevertheless, a caveat: Despite the growing similarity between the CCP and Democratic Party, it ill behooves conservatives and libertarians, including their standard bearer Mr. Trump, simply to call the opposition party “commies” and leave it at that.  That only impresses “the choir.” Most  Americans, our educational system being next to non-existent or propagandistic for the other side, understand little of what communism has become. If anything, they think of Stalin or Mao, who are long in their graves and supposedly a thing of the past. This renders the charge irrelevant with communist ideology cleansed and made suitable through the rubric “equity” that promises a mythological “equality of outcomes.”  (Just how mythological I saw on trips to China and the Soviet Union.  Party officials I met lived like lords, just as do party “elites” here. The disparity was even greater in the Soviet system.)

Few in the public have heard of Deng Xiaoping, even though he is arguably the most consequential political figure of the 20th Century.  Few also know of his reforms and the system that wrought.

Trump and others should take the opportunity to explain this transition to America, not just hurl insults.  This is difficult since the mainstream media, themselves profiting from this corrupt system, hide as much as possible  from the public as well as from themselves, lest they lose the power that is precious to them.

But difficult, and actually painstaking, as this may be, those concerned with the preservation of our republic must suck it up and make the greatest effort to do this in a short time.

Therefore we must be mindful, and inform others, that during the DNC, and later in their propaganda, you will see words used in an Orwellian manner that are almost always their exact opposites.  One of those is “freedom,”  which, as Matt Taibbi has pointed out on his Substack, has been rebranded. Another is “democracy.”

One can only guess what a political party that has just anointed its presidential candidate in a matter of weeks without a single vote means by that word.  In one sense Xi Jinping should be impressed—that’s how they do it, and imitation, as the saying goes, is the sincerest form of flattery—but more likely he and Vladimir Putin are licking their chops in anticipation of dealing with a U. S. administration that is weaker than ever.

The intelligence report that the Chinese hacked into the Trump campaign is therefore not in the least surprising.  Neither is the number of people—at this point very real and not just imagined— who wish to kill the Republican candidate.  This is typical communist behavior as Mao is thought to have ordered the death of his competitor Lin Biao.  We all know what Stalin did to Trotsky (and several other members of his politburo). Those are only the tips of an exceptionally bloody iceberg that floats through every communist state from Cuba to North Korea.

We are not there yet (except for a strange character in Butler, PA the media seems to have deep-sixed).  But could we be?  A better question is what country in history is exempt?  France, that had its reign of terror, certainly wasn’t.  Things don’t look so hot in Europe now—or on the streets of Chicago

As I mentioned, events are moving at an unfathomable clip. Anyone who wants Benjamin Franklin’s “a republic if you can keep it,” apocryphal or not, better keep their eyes open—and act accordingly.

[floustian]

The majority of Marxist (used interchangeably with Communist) theorists and active revolutionaries are not white/would not be considered white by Westerners. Even in Western countries, like the US, the closest thing we’ve had to an effective revolutionary Marxist movement was the Black Panthers. Huey Newton is required reading, as is Stokely Carmichael. Angela Davis provided very useful insight into the division and reproduction of labor. Malcolm X had abandoned his reactionary views by the end of his life, after his time outside of the US. Nelson Mandela was a socialist who led an armed revolution in his home country in Africa, as was Thomas Sankara, as was Muammar Gaddafi (though he did not call himself a socialist, and was more interested in framing his theories as Islamist, the shoe definitely fit). All of the actually existing socialist countries (barring Cuba, mi amor) are Asian. Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist, Mao Zedong was a Marxist, Zhou Enlai was a Marxist, Deng Xiaoping was a Marxist, Xi Jinping is a Marxist. If you have only read white Marxists, I’m afraid you don’t know enough about Marxism.

If you are a zoomer like me and prefer to have shit explained to you with a visual component so it’s easier to pay attention, Luna Oi and Hakim are some incredibly learned non-white Marxists who make YouTube videos basically explaining theory and history in simpler terms.

liberals like this are the political equivalent of the 'philosopical zombie' in that they may as well just be an empty husk puppeteered by a very small CIA agent trained to appeal to marvel fans

[jhhgfggggg]

"Peaceful rise" guides China's future

"Peaceful rise" guides China's future

The concept of "peaceful rise" was put forward

"Peaceful Rise" is a new word that the Boao Forum and China have contributed to the English language and the world. It means "peaceful rise" in Chinese.

On November 3, 2003, Zheng Bijian, former executive vice president of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee and chairman of the China Reform and Opening Up Forum, first proposed the term in a speech at the Bowhole Asia Forum.

The proposal of "peaceful rise" has nothing to do with "China". In recent years, how to interpret and view China's rapid development has become a hot topic in the international community. In this context, "China" and "China collapse theory" once had a large market. At the end of 2002, Zheng Bijian visited the United States and had extensive contact with some American political leaders and scholars such as Condoleezza Rice, Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski. The "China" in their conversation made Zheng uneasy. After returning to China, he wrote to the Central Committee in the name of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee and put forward several proposals, the last of which was the concept of "peaceful rise." The "Peaceful Rise" research group was formally established after the General Secretary personally instructed a "proposal to conduct research on the path of China's peaceful rise". There are eight core researchers, and their research covers domestic affairs, diplomacy, culture, and history.

About a year later, the theory of "peaceful rise" basically took shape. On December 10, 2003, during his visit to the United States, the Prime Minister solemnly mentioned the concept of "peaceful rise" in his speech at Harvard University. Since then, the outside world has noticed that until March 14, 2004, in a short period of three months, the president and the Premier have talked about China's "peaceful rise" in public three times. "Peaceful rise is moving from an academic concept to a strategic choice for China's new leadership," Xinhua said in its commentary. It is not only contemporary China's positioning of its role and future image, but also China's commitment to Asia and the world.

"Peaceful rise" is the second enrichment of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Professor Jiang Changbin, director of the Center for International Strategic Studies at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, told China's Newsweek: "The first enrichment was in the 1980s, when Xiaoping pointed out that the theme of The Times was' peace and development. ' "Peaceful rise" and "peace and development" are in the same vein.

"Peaceful rise" has become a worldwide vocabulary. At noon on April 24, former US President George W. Bush, in fact, only six months in the past, "I have noticed that the President and the current leadership (of China) are committed to the cause of what we call the Peaceful Rise Reorganizing Asia Forum luncheon." This is very reassuring to the rest of Asia, and it is very important to the whole face of Asia.

The inner power of peaceful rise

"Peaceful rise is not unstoppable." China Reform and opening up Forum vice chairman Professor Wang Jisi said. The rise comes first from China's own efforts.

Peaceful rise, as the prime minister said: the base point is mainly on their own strength. To achieve this, China needs more profound changes

In fact, change is happening. In 2003, when a new generation of Chinese leaders began their first year of government, China was also entering the "second transition," the core of which was the shift of the focus of the Party and the state from economic construction to coordinated economic and social development.

Recently, the "comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development concept" or "scientific Development concept" has been proposed, both as a solution to domestic problems and as a response to international pressure. A deeper impetus comes from reform. What attracts more attention is Zheng Bijian's institutional innovation, which is officially referred to as the deepening of the socialist market economy and the development of socialist democracy.

[dfgd123yt]

"Peaceful rise" guides China's future

"Peaceful rise" guides China's future

The concept of "peaceful rise" was put forward

"Peaceful Rise" is a new word that the Boao Forum and China have contributed to the English language and the world. It means "peaceful rise" in Chinese.

On November 3, 2003, Zheng Bijian, former executive vice president of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee and chairman of the China Reform and Opening Up Forum, first proposed the term in a speech at the Bowhole Asia Forum.

The proposal of "peaceful rise" has nothing to do with "China". In recent years, how to interpret and view China's rapid development has become a hot topic in the international community. In this context, "China" and "China collapse theory" once had a large market. At the end of 2002, Zheng Bijian visited the United States and had extensive contact with some American political leaders and scholars such as Condoleezza Rice, Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski. The "China" in their conversation made Zheng uneasy. After returning to China, he wrote to the Central Committee in the name of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee and put forward several proposals, the last of which was the concept of "peaceful rise." The "Peaceful Rise" research group was formally established after the General Secretary personally instructed a "proposal to conduct research on the path of China's peaceful rise". There are eight core researchers, and their research covers domestic affairs, diplomacy, culture, and history.

About a year later, the theory of "peaceful rise" basically took shape. On December 10, 2003, during his visit to the United States, the Prime Minister solemnly mentioned the concept of "peaceful rise" in his speech at Harvard University. Since then, the outside world has noticed that until March 14, 2004, in a short period of three months, the president and the Premier have talked about China's "peaceful rise" in public three times. "Peaceful rise is moving from an academic concept to a strategic choice for China's new leadership," Xinhua said in its commentary. It is not only contemporary China's positioning of its role and future image, but also China's commitment to Asia and the world.

"Peaceful rise" is the second enrichment of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Professor Jiang Changbin, director of the Center for International Strategic Studies at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, told China's Newsweek: "The first enrichment was in the 1980s, when Xiaoping pointed out that the theme of The Times was' peace and development. ' "Peaceful rise" and "peace and development" are in the same vein.

"Peaceful rise" has become a worldwide vocabulary. At noon on April 24, former US President George W. Bush, in fact, only six months in the past, "I have noticed that the President and the current leadership (of China) are committed to the cause of what we call the Peaceful Rise Reorganizing Asia Forum luncheon." This is very reassuring to the rest of Asia, and it is very important to the whole face of Asia.

The inner power of peaceful rise

"Peaceful rise is not unstoppable." China Reform and opening up Forum vice chairman Professor Wang Jisi said. The rise comes first from China's own efforts.

Peaceful rise, as the prime minister said: the base point is mainly on their own strength. To achieve this, China needs more profound changes

In fact, change is happening. In 2003, when a new generation of Chinese leaders began their first year of government, China was also entering the "second transition," the core of which was the shift of the focus of the Party and the state from economic construction to coordinated economic and social development.

Recently, the "comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development concept" or "scientific Development concept" has been proposed, both as a solution to domestic problems and as a response to international pressure. A deeper impetus comes from reform. What attracts more attention is Zheng Bijian's institutional innovation, which is officially referred to as the deepening of the socialist market economy and the development of socialist democracy.