China at the time of its revolution was very not advanced with very little capitalism; it had less capitalism than Russia at the time of its revolution. Marxist socialism does not come from feudal or quasi-feudal modes of production. It comes from the capitalist mode China tried to find a Road to Socialism bypassing capitalism. This experiment failed , and as true scientists, the Chinese Marxist Party accepted the truth and set out to get Capital from which there is a road to socialism. And they got it ! From the Imperialists. Deng was an arch-brilliant, creative Marxist-Leninist; and from retirement; of course he was in a culture which values filial piety .
In The Manifesto of the Communist Party , Engels and Marxists do not envision the end of all capitalist private enterprises in the first phase of socialism. Only the banks are memtioned as being taken over but more strictly regulated than before the revolution :
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics
Patrick , There’s no road to socialism bypassing capitalism. China learned that’s from practice, trial and error . It’s even a lesson from the history of the op Soviet Union to a certain extent . It’s especially true with imperialism still in existence, because imperialism will invade your country and murder tens of millions to keep you from expropriating them . Evidently, many African governments understand this .
The struggle continues; more victories are certain.
Charles
https://youtu.be/ZuBCr_15BIk
Affirmative Action in China :
Leo :
”Of course there are Han assholes. Of course bigotry, ethnocentricity, xenophobia, discrimination against minorities, and racism exists in China, as they do everywhere.
But the difference is that the PRC is ruled by a resolutely anti-racist communist party.
After victory, the Communist Party reversed the Han-chauvinist policies of the Nationalist Party which ordained that anyone living within national borders should be assimilated to Han culture. How ever, because Han chauvinist and prejudiced attitudes still exist, as well as many cases of discrimination, the CPC has implemented anti-chauvinist policies which suppressing Han-supremacy, protect ethnic minority cultures and identities, and promotes the economic empowerment of minorities. These are so comprehensive and far-reaching that affirmative action policies in the West are trifling in comparison:
— Ethnic minorities have always been exempt from the “1-Child” policy, which was only applied to the ethnic majority of Han people. This is the major reason for Uyghur population having grown at a pace 12 X faster than that of Han in the past 70 years.
— Local governments of ethnic minority regions are all headed by members of the ethnic minority group, without exception.
— Free elementary, middle and high-school-level boarding schools and special college-preparatory classes for minority children.
— Minority children can get into a university with exam scores 20 to 30 points below the minimum score for Han children.
— A separate network of universities exists only for minority students. Similar to HBCUs in the US, but better.
— No-interest loans are offered for small minority businesses.
— Businesses are officially encouraged to hire minorities.
— A comprehensive, bilingual-education program aims at helping minorities learn both their own languages as well as Mandarin. Meanwhile, scholars are creating alphabets for minority languages that had no writing systems to help ensure that these languages do not die.
— Han people living in ethnic minority regions are required to learn the minority languages. For example, Han living in Tibet are required to learn Tibetan. 【🇨🇳 壮族 Zhuang ethnic】
Mostly live in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in Southern China. Their language is Zhuang, which belongs to the Zhuang-Dai branch of the Zhuang-Dong family of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Some also live in the Yunnan, Guangdong, Guizhou and Hunan provinces. They form one of the 56 ethnic groups officially recognized by the People's Republic of China.
Their population, estimated at 18 million people, makes them the largest minority in China.
#China #China中國 #chinese
https://socialistchina.org/2021/09/26/roland-boer-we-need-to-talk-more-about-chinas-socialist-democracy/
We are pleased to publish this original article by Roland Boer (Professor of Marxist Philosophy at Dalian University of Technology, China, and author of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners (Springer, 2021)). The article provides the reader with a very valuable introduction to China’s socialist democratic system, a topic about which there is widespread ignorance in the West.
Este artículo se ha traducido en español.
We need to talk more – much more – about China’s socialist democratic system. Why? There are many reasons, but the main reason is that we should not let the criticisms of China from the small number of “Western” countries set the agenda. So let me propose the following thesis: China’s socialist democratic system is already quite mature and superior to any other democratic system. Actually, this is not my proposition, but that of a host of Chinese specialists. They are very clear that China’s socialist democratic system is already showing its latent quality. Obviously, we need to know much more about how this system works and how it is constantly improving.
What China Learned From US Capitalism's Development
by Richard D Wolff
https://independentmediainstitute.org/economy-for-all/ (November 19 2021)
https://www.counterpunch.org (November 23 2021)
https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2880px-Pudong_Shanghai_November_2017_panorama-1200x600.jpg Photograph Source: King of Hearts - CC BY-SA 4.0 {1}
US capitalism was, in certain ways, the world's most successful capitalism until recently. Better than the capitalist systems of Britain, Germany, and Japan, US capitalism avoided two key traps. First, it found a remarkable way to manage the capitalist-worker class struggle for a long time before it lost that capacity. The United States also found a way to organize its imperial rule without the overt colonialism that provoked rising resistance that eventually became too costly and unmanageable for Britain, Germany, Japan, and other colonial powers. But in recent decades, US capitalism failed to manage its class struggles or to reverse the decline in its informal imperialism.
Chinese leaders have learned, implicitly or explicitly, from how US capitalism lost those capacities. Thus, China organized both its employer-employee relationships and its international linkages differently. By doing so, the Chinese economy is ascending while that of the United States is descending. The process is, of course, uneven; the differences between the United States and China vary. But the general pattern and direction remain the same: China up and the United States down.
From 1820 to the 1970s, US capitalism employed a fast-growing number of workers and paid them a real wage that grew every decade until the 1970s. That remarkable performance enabled, validated, and combined with a culture that emphasized consumption (the positive) as the compensation for labor (the negative). The combination blunted the appeals of dissidents, radicals, socialists, and other critics of capitalism until the 1930s. Productivity grew across the 150 years even faster than real wages and boosted profits rapidly. The United States outperformed other capitalisms in both the profits accruing to the employer class and the real wages flowing to the employee class.
The 1929 stock market crash and the 1930s Great Depression were the exceptions that proved the rule. US capitalism then broke down, as did its promises of prosperity and growth. Fearful of a collapse, the US employer class - via former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Democratic Party - offered a deal, which was an alliance of sorts to the employee class. The deal was brokered by capitalism's leading critics then: the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) plus two socialist and one communist party. Together, employers and employees produced the New Deal, and a political lurch to the left undid a good part of the economic inequalities built up in the United States before 1929. It was a "great reset" that, with World War Two, enabled a resumed upward arc of US capitalism. Moreover, that arc took on an added imperial dimension when World War Two undermined the old formal colonial empires, allowing the US state to move quickly to replace them informally.
But the US employer class made a huge strategic blunder after the end of the Roosevelt era and World War Two. It failed to recognize how the left's strength in the 1930s had inadvertently saved US capitalism via the "great reset". The New Deal was in large part a "trickle-up" Keynesian stimulus, unlike the traditional "trickle-down" economic policies of US governments, past and present. It brought the United States out of the Great Depression while reducing income and wealth inequality unlike the decades before and after. But blinded by the fear of and rage at paying taxes to fund the New Deal and other similar reforms, the rise of a strong US left, and World War Two's US alliance with the USSR, the employer class determined to roll all that back after 1945. Chiefly via its Republican Party wing, the employer class set itself the task of undoing the New Deal by destroying the coalition that created it (CIO plus socialists and communists). The employer class successfully wrecked that coalition and each of its components. However, that wreckage also reoriented US capitalism onto a trajectory that ended its 150 years of ascendancy.
By the 1970s, the reset stalled. US employers had so vanquished labor and the left that they indulged opportunities to enhance profits without fear of or even much concern about employee reactions. Many US employers relocated their production abroad where wages were far lower, making the US companies' profits much higher. Many more employers in the United States undertook rapid automation. New immigration policies were waved in. Good proletarian jobs gave way to the precariat that today's younger generations take bitterly for granted. Instead of real wage gains across every decade from 1820 to 1970, the last 50 years saw real wages stagnate alongside deepening household debt.
Thus, the 21st century's cycles have been progressively larger and harsher, rivaling that of the 1930s. Yet no comparable political left shift has occurred, no revival of a movement yet along the lines of the New Deal Coalition. This time, a deep crisis yields no massive "trickle-up" policy component. Income and wealth inequalities continue to worsen. No left-led reset is occurring to save US capitalism from sinking into ever deeper economic, social, and cultural conflicts.
Meanwhile, many policymakers in China have drawn lessons from the US experience: which policies to replicate and which policies to discard. China saw that US capitalists had often worked closely with the US state successfully to undertake major projects by coordinating and mobilizing public and private resources. These included fighting a century of wars to subordinate, evict, or exterminate the Indigenous population, waging wars of independence from Britain in 1776 and 1812, ending a competitive slave economy in the US South via civil war, undertaking infrastructure capitalists needed to grow (such as canals and railroads), advancing US capitalists' interests in and the subsequent recoveries after World Wars One and Two, and replacing the old colonialism systems after 1945 and substituting US global military, economic, and political dominance.
In China, economic policymakers also have taken note of when weaknesses and reverses afflicted US capitalism. The relatively unregulated capitalism after World War One eventuated in the 1929 crash. Likewise, the deregulated ("neoliberal" or "globalized") capitalism after the 1970s eventuated in the 2008 crash. Refusing national health insurance enabled a private medical-industrial complex to overcharge and slow US capitalism to benefit from its excess profitability. It also underprepared the United States for the COVID-19 pandemic with catastrophic results.
More generally, China concluded that in the United States, achieving prioritized social goals happened more when public and private resources were coordinated and focused to do so. China also observed that wars and economic crises often produced this coordination and focus in the US The logical inference by economic observers in China was to consider that a continuous program of coordination and focus could more generally outperform what the United States had achieved with its merely occasional program.
That conclusion fit nicely also into China's conception of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In that conception, a strong Communist Party and the state it controls secure the continuous program of coordination and focus of a system that mixes private and public enterprises. China's economic leaders attribute to that continuous program an impressive annual GDP growth rate {2} record. From 1977 to 2020, China's average annual GDP growth rate {3} (9.2 percent) was well over three times higher than the US record (2.6 percent). The average real wage in China {4} has also steeply risen in recent years, which the country points to as another success of its economic system. In contrast, US real wages have stagnated recently. The superiority of the recent Chinese record over that of the United States is persuasive evidence for China to continue its policy. China learned from the United States how to outperform US capitalism.
Karl Marx once wrote that no economic system disappears until it has exhausted all its possible forms. If one understands economic systems, with Marx, as particular ways to organize the human relations of production, then capitalism is that way that juxtaposes employers versus employees. The United Kingdom, but especially the United States, developed that economic system with a strong emphasis on its private enterprise forms. The USSR developed that system with a strong emphasis on its public enterprise forms. China, meanwhile, developed that economic system by mixing private and public enterprise forms (as Scandinavia and Western Europe also did), but with an emphasis on strong central control to coordinate and mobilize both private and public enterprises to achieve prioritized social goals.
China may thus be where the capitalist system reaches the fullest potential of its various forms - exhausts them in that sense - and thus prepares the way for a transition beyond capitalism.
Links:
{1} https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
{2} https://go.ind.media/e/546932/020-locations-CN-1W-start-1977/lvzshn/947641725?h=fQQXBhgqZf32e8wPAJZR9Xoe7SKnLWEO9_9W6FklJ50
{3} https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-US-name-desc-false-start-1977/lvzshq/947641725?h=fQQXBhgqZf32e8wPAJZR9Xoe7SKnLWEO9_9W6FklJ50
{4} https://go.ind.media/e/546932/en-china-real-wage-index/lvzshs/947641725?h=fQQXBhgqZf32e8wPAJZR9Xoe7SKnLWEO9_9W6FklJ50
https://independentmediainstitute.org/economy-for-all/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/23/what-china-learned-from-u-s-capitalisms-development/
China to develop new ultra-high-speed trains, commercial airplanes
#China vowed on Monday to strengthen research and development into cutting-edge and disruptive #technologies in the #transport sector, and carry out studies of new types of vehicles such as ultra-high-speed #trains and commercial #airplanes.
The plan was put forward in a guideline issued jointly by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Science and Technology, in a bid to accelerate the construction of transport systems using scientific and technological #innovations.
The guideline will focus on the major tasks that limit China's development in science, technology and transportation, for which it will strengthen the availability of high-quality science and technology, promote innovations in related industries, and enhance the fusion of new technologies with transportation.
Read full: http://en.people.cn/n3/2021/0914/c90000-9896019.html
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/socialism-before-shareholders-china-reigns-in-big-techs-unchecked-power/
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: The Chinese Miracle, Revisited
by Pepe Escobar
https://www.unz.com (June 30 2021)
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Escobar-930x520-600x335.jpg
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) centennial takes place this week at the heart of an incandescent geopolitical equation.
China, the emerging superpower, is back to the global prominence it enjoyed throughout centuries of recorded history, while the declining Hegemon is paralyzed by the "existential challenge" posed to its fleeting, unilateral dominance.
A mindset of full-spectrum confrontation already sketched in the 2017 US National Security Review is sliding fast into fear, loathing, and relentless Sinophobia.
Add to it the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership graphically exposing the ultimate Mackinderian nightmare of Anglo-American elites jaded by "ruling the world" - for only two centuries at best.
The Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping may have coined the ultimate formula for what many in the West defined as the Chinese miracle:
To seek truth from facts, not from dogmas, whether from East or West.
So this was never about divine intervention, but planning, hard work, and learning by trial and error.
The recent session of the National People's Congress provides a stark example. Not only it approved a new Five-Year Plan but in fact a full road map for China's development up to 2035: three plans in one.
What the whole world saw, in practice, was the manifest efficiency of the Chinese governance system, capable of designing and implementing extremely complex geoeconomic strategies after plenty of local and regional debate on a vast range of policy initiatives.
Compare it to the endless bickering and gridlock in Western liberal democracies, which are incapable of planning for the next quarter, not to mention fifteen years.
The best and the brightest in China actually do their Deng; they couldn't care less about the politicizing of governance systems. What matters is what they define as a very effective system to make SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) development plans, and put them into practice.
The 85% popular vote
At the start of 2021, before the onset of the Year of the Metal Ox, President Xi Jinping emphasized that "favorable social conditions" should be in place for the CCP centennial celebrations.
Oblivious to waves of demonization coming from the West, for Chinese public opinion what matters is whether the CCP delivered. And deliver it did (over 85% popular approval). China controlled COVID-19 in record time; economic growth is back; poverty alleviation was achieved; and the civilization-state became a "moderately prosperous society" - right on schedule for the CCP centennial.
Since 1949, the size of the Chinese economy soared by a whopping 189 times. Over the past two decades, China's GDP grew 11-fold. Since 2010, it more than doubled, from $6 trillion to $15 trillion, and now accounts for 17% of global economic output.
No wonder Western grumbling is irrelevant. Shanghai Capital investment boss Eric Li succinctly describes the governance gap; in the US, government changes but not policy. In China, the government doesn't change; policy does.
This is the background for the next development stage - where the CCP will in fact double down on its unique hybrid model of "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
The key point is that the Chinese leadership, via non-stop policy adjustments (trial and error, always) has evolved a model of "peaceful rise" - their own terminology - that essentially respects China's immense historical and cultural experiences.
In this case, Chinese exceptionalism means respecting Confucianism - which privileges harmony and abhors conflict - as well as Daoism - which privileges balance - over the boisterous, warring, hegemonic Western model.
This is reflected in major policy adjustments such as the new "dual circulation" drive, which places greater emphasis on the domestic market compared to China as the "factory of the world".
Past and future are totally intertwined in China; what was done in previous dynasties echoes in the future. The best contemporary example is the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - the overarching Chinese foreign policy concept for the foreseeable future.
As detailed by Renmin University Professor Wang Yiwei {1}, BRI is about to reshape geopolitics, "bringing Eurasia back to its historical place at the center of human civilization". Wang has shown how "the two great civilizations of the East and the West were linked until the rise of the Ottoman Empire cut off the Ancient Silk Road".
Europe moving seaward led to "globalization through colonization"; the decline of the Silk Road; the world's center shifting to the West; the rise of the US; and the decline of Europe. Now, Wang argues, "Europe is faced with a historic opportunity to return to the world center through the revival of Eurasia".
And that's exactly what the Hegemon will go no holds barred to prevent. Zhu and Xi
It's fair to argue that Xi's historical counterpart is the Hongwu emperor Zhu, the founder of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). The emperor was keen to present his dynasty as a Chinese renewal after Mongol domination via the Yuan dynasty. Xi frames it as "Chinese rejuvenation":
China used to be a world economic power. However, it missed its chance in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and the consequent dramatic changes, and was thus left behind and suffered humiliation under foreign invasion ... we must not let this tragic history repeat itself.
The difference is that 21st century China under Xi will not retreat inward as it did under the Ming. The parallel for the near future would rather be with the Tang dynasty (618-907), which privileged trade and interactions with the world at large.
To comment on the torrent of Western misinterpretations of China is a waste of time. For the Chinese, the overwhelming majority of Asia, and for the Global South, much more relevant is to register how the American imperial narrative - "we are the liberators of Asia-Pacific" - has now been totally debunked.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/514BiChCuYL.jpg
In fact, Chairman Mao may end up having the last laugh. As he wrote in 1957,
... if the imperialists insist on launching a third world war, it is certain that several hundred million more will turn to socialism, and then there will not be much room left on earth for the imperialists; it is also likely that the whole structure of imperialism will utterly collapse.
Martin Jacques, one of the very few Westerners who actually studied China in depth, correctly pointed out {2} how "China has enjoyed five separate periods when it has enjoyed a position of pre-eminence - or shared pre-eminence - in the world: part of the Han, the Tang, arguably the Song, the early Ming, and the early Qing".
So China, historically, does represent continuous renewal and "rejuvenation" (Xi). We're right in the middle of another one of these phases - now conducted by a CCP dynasty that, incidentally, does not believe in miracles, but in hardcore planning. Western exceptionalists may continue to throw a fit 24/7 ad infinitum: that will not change the course of history.
Links:
{1} https://www.amazon.com/Belt-Road-Initiative-China-Offer-ebook/dp/B08T8RGBSX/ref=sr_1_1 {2}
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1223046.shtml
Pepe Escobar Archive: https://www.unz.com/author/pepe-escobar/
Republished from Strategic Culture Foundation by permission of author or representative: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/06/30/the-chinese-miracle-revisited/.
https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-chinese-miracle-revisited/
China Mega Investment Deal With Iran Blows US Out of the Picture
A new world in the East is amalgamating as a direct result of American's delusional views about where it thinks it is in the world.
by Martin Jay
https://www.strategic-culture.org (July 11 2021)
https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Jay1107-930x520.jpg
China has just announced that it will invest 400 billion dollars in Iran over a period of 25 years in exchange for a great deal on Iran's oil - in the latest move of absolute defiance against the US and its secondary sanctions. Where's this all heading?
400 billion dollars is a considerable amount of money to invest in Iran, which, since Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, otherwise called the 'Iran Deal') we can certainly say is a poor country. In exchange, China gets rock bottom prices on oil, while both sides enjoy the double-whammy of sending a vociferous message to Washington: your days are up as a super power who can bully countries with sanctions.
The deal was really the last thing that Joe Biden needed in barely his six month in office, where he has been weak on Russia and China and arguably pathetic in the Middle East when it comes to delivering on the 'America is back' rhetoric. 'America is back' to what, we might all wonder, given that Iran is commissioning drone strikes against US forces, Afghanistan is rapidly heading towards a Taliban takeover, and the Iran talks in Vienna have more or less ended with a draft of what The Guardian euphemistically calls a 'roadmap'.
China's investment deal with Iran sends a stark, lucid message to Joe Biden that it intends to take advantage of America's lame 'soft diplomacy' geopolitics and move in with real policies, which in practical terms means investment. With Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries squabbling amongst themselves about oil productivity, during a six-year high on the price per barrel and an Iran deal more unlikely than ever taking shape, the region more confused than ever about how much of a two-way street America's hegemony is in the region, the Middle East is tilting ever so slightly towards the East. It's not just that Assad became the new friend with GCC leaders because he masterly used the Russians as a guarantor of staying in power which is driving Gulf Arab elites to look towards China as a potential new partner, but Arabs put so much more trust in China as a longer-term partner which they can rely on. Stability.
One of the reasons why a new re-worked Iran Deal is so unlikely to happen is for the same reason. How long could Washington even guarantee a sanctions-free deal? One term of Joe Biden?
Middle East leaders, as well as those in the MEMA region like Egypt are looking for a solution to an impending Arab Spring 2.0 and they don't see any point in investing in Biden for help there, which is why they are getting closer to Assad and hedging their bets that when the brown stuff hits the fan, Russia (and perhaps even China) could be behind them to keep them in power.
For such an arrangement to happen, you have to have deals which go beyond simply rockets and guns - that is assuming that the Biden administration will eventually let a 23 billion dollar deal for F35s to even go through to the UAE, with obvious fears that technology could be shared with the Chinese if Bejiing makes the moves in the region to buddy up with GCC countries.
But this massive deal with Iran sends a message to Gulf Arab states which Washington might note. The message is that the Chinese are long-term players who are looking for long-term partners and many GCC countries' elites will look at the deal and wonder why they are not looking at China for more partnerships in construction, energy, telecoms, and even defence.
The news of the China-Iran deal came more or less with the announcement to the UAE blocking an OPEC idea to boost oil production. It gave many western media hacks the opportunity to go big on the UAE-Saudi "rift" angle to their stories. In reality though, these two GCC super states have not been on the same page for quite some time and the lack of a Big Brother (that is, Uncle Sam) has not helped. In reality, they disagree on Iran, Qatar, and even Yemen, so a war of words about 2 million barrels of oil a day is hardly anything to get hot and bothered by.
But the China deal with Iran should shake them up and make them realise that there is disarray in the Middle East which can't be blamed entirely on the US taking a step back and playing geopolitics by numbers. Biden's understanding of the region and its nuances is often overplayed by hacks, simply because he was on a committee in Washington for years which covered the region and he was Vice President under Obama. He is remarkably ignorant of what it really important and is not at all able to understand the sensibilities of its leaders. For this, we can understand why he falls into traps easily set by Iran (which in reality sees a sanctions-free deal with the US as hardly worth the effort), whose leaders are looking to other Big Brother models to embrace. The China deal shows the region and Washington that the US is no longer the superpower who can expect so much leverage from so little action. The world is changing and the Trump move in 2018 to remove the US from the Iran deal merely enhanced and emboldened a new world in the East which is amalgamating as a direct result of American's delusional views about where it thinks it is in the world. With Iran selling so-called "illegal" oil already to China (and probably to India at the end of the year), the secondary sanctions which Trump imposed will no longer be worth the paper they're written on. Invest in Iran. _____
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Martin Jay is an award-winning British journalist based in Morocco where he is a correspondent for The Daily Mail (UK) who previously reported on the Arab Spring there for CNN, as well as Euronews. From 2012 to 2019 he was based in Beirut where he worked for a number of international media titles including BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, DW, as well as reporting on a freelance basis for the UK's Daily Mail, The Sunday Times plus TRT World. His career has led him to work in almost 50 countries in Africa, The Middle East, and Europe for a host of major media titles. He has lived and worked in Morocco, Belgium, Kenya, and Lebanon.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/07/11/china-mega-investment-deal-with-iran-blows-us-out-of-picture/
Subject: [lbo-talk] Roberts: Why Chinese economy keeps motoring while others sputter Reply-To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org British Marxist economist Michael Roberts is confident state ownership of the financial system and other key sectors of the economy “will keep China’s economy motoring” in the event of a major trade war. State control of the commanding heights is what has allowed China to continue to grow robustly during the past decade while more advanced capitalist economies have struggled to recover from the Great Recession. In these, investment is driven by the private sector, which will only invest when and where there is the expectation of profit. “In the last ten years, in the US, Europe and Japan, it has been capitalists who made the decisions on investment and employment and they did so on the basis of profit not economic recovery”, Roberts notes. “In contrast, China’s fixed investment increased rapidly because it was driven by a programme of both direct state investment and use of state owned banks to rapidly expand company financing.” Keynesians have advocated government spending to stimulate bank lending and private sector investment as an alternative to austerity, but Roberts argues that “Keynesian stimulus policies do not work in a predominantly capitalist economy where the profitability of capitalist investment is very low.” https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/chinas-keynesian-policies/
No comments:
Post a Comment