/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>464862
>The Russians are acting deliberately, their goal is not just to impose a crushing tactical military defeat on Ukraine
stfu
don't you EVER talk to me nazoid bitch

I need to wash my hands now
if only I could choke you through the screen..

>>464858
>dismissed, bitch
>>464859
stupid motherfucker
>>464920
>if only I could choke you through the screen.

>>464959
What's the fucking deal with this shit? What did china just have a spy balloon just accidentally drift off course or some shit? lol. Apperently burger government was pissed off

>>464960
My bet is that it's a meteorological balloon

>>464960
It's a balloon for equipment, likely a science experiment or a weather balloon.
Those balloons can't be directly steered. But it's possible to predict weather patterns. If released at a specific time and place, those weather pattern will carry the balloon on a predictable path. So you sort-off can choose where they go. But it's not a perfect mechanism, balloons can drift of course. That is the most likely explanation for this.

Of course it's also possible that it's a Chinese spy balloon. China has spy satellites that scan the US (the reverse is also true) so there can hardly be a sensible reason for such a puzzling stunt.

It's certainly not a saber rattling provocation
<Behold my mighty instrument lifting balloon, kneel before it's power.
Said no-one ever.

>>464959
>>464960
>>464961
>>464963
I think it was a political balloon.
They hyped this shit in order to stop the diplomatic visit to China by US secretary of state Blinken.

they popped the balloon

it's over loon-bros

>>465000
NOOOO GOD WHY
THE HUMANITY! I loved that balloon!

>>465001
They scrambled an F22 air superiority fighter to shoot it down.
Shooting sparrows with a cannon is for amateurs, popping balloons with Fighter jets is where it's at.

They used up an air to air missile for this. If the Chinese release more balloons are they going to empty their missile ammo racks ?

>>465030
Don't those jets have actual turrets attached to them? It seems so unnecessary. How much are one of those fuckers anyways?

>>465031
They don't have turrets, a turret means that it can aim independently from the direction the jet is facing.
But they do have a big 20mil dogfight cannon.

>It seems so unnecessary.
Yeah they probably could have shredded the balloon with that cannon.
Now that i'm thinking about it, a balloon moves quite slow, and a jet moves quite fast.
The balloon wouldn't be in cannon range for very long. Maybe they didn't want to risk the jet catching on the balloon or something.

>How much are one of those fuckers anyways?
I don't know what missiles they used but for the F22 standard air to air armament is
the "cheap one" Aim 9 is $200k a pop
the expensive one Aim 120 is $1 million a pop

There is no way the balloon cost anywhere near as much.

It's ober

>>465093
The ai is reading digital tea leafs.
The US empire is soooo not prepared to start shit with China, they got outproduced in industrial warfare by Russia.

>>465116
It's true, the US military is a joke. Except what that anon didn't mention is that China and Russia's militaries are even funnier jokes.
But their point about industrial capacity winning wars is correct in the long run. A US declaration of war against China would probably result in something similar to when Japan declared war on the US.

>>465173
Militaries aren't built for the purpose so many think they're made for. If you wanted a military that would win a total war, you wouldn't have the imperial army, but a mass army and a reasonable willingness to accept conscription and make something out of useless grunts. That is the thing military leaders abhor more than anything else, because they like their warrior aristocracy and sense of elitism.

Anyway I mentioned on the other board (before mod faggots deleted all my posts) that US and China have no real reason to engage in a war of any sort. Even the "Trade war" was more performative, as was the "pivot to Asia" from Obama. It's the sort of thing that makes for dinner conversation with the rubes, but anyone serious laughs at that. The matter was settled by Nixon and Mao in the 1970s, and this setup of the global system depends on Asia being held by the CCP. If you're a global oligarch, you love everything coming out of China right now. Xi is president for life and made himself ridiculously safe within the party, does basically everything the oligarchic leadership actually cares about, and the US ruling class press pumps up Xi as the magnificent bastard. Right now, Xi is portrayed as the smartest man in the room, and if you know how to read American agitprop tea leaves, it suggests that they like the situation very much, and no one wants to fuck that up. I have yet to see a good reason why anyone competent would throw away the US-China arrangement, or why China would see Dugin's Eurasian faggotry as anything other than desperation.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=W4EPv59Wo8Y

The Ballooning War Drive Against China

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=ZrpaYVztM18

Chinese state media talking about the West's attitude towards helping the Syrian Earthquake victims

It feels like this is indicative about where a society is heading. Because when the west was rising, children also wanted to become astronauts.

Anybody got a better analysis ?

The US Neocons made TSMC relocate chip-factories to the US, and the result of that is:

<More than 3,000 semiconductor engineers have departed Taiwan for positions at mainland China companies, the island's Business Weekly reports. Analysts at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research say this figure appears to be accurate. That amounts to nearly one-tenth of Taiwan's roughly 40,000 engineers involved in semiconductor research and development.

Sauce
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/Taiwan-loses-3-000-chip-engineers-to-Made-in-China-2025

>>466555
>The US Neocons made TSMC relocate chip-factories to the US
really? this the biggest red flag yet that they are planning to start a war there soon

>>466556
>really?
yes, they tried to make it look like TSMC was just expanding its operations into the west, but they're unbolting the most advanced stuff from Taiwan and are shipping it to the US

<China War Risk Sees Taiwan’s TSMC Moving Fabs to US, Japan

<At first glance, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp’s plan to build foundries in Japan and the US looks like just another routine business expansion.

<But dig deeper and it quickly becomes clear that these are not just more run-of-the-mill deals.

<Just exactly how TSMC and western nations navigate the away from production heavily concentrated in Taiwan is a delicate balancing act. If it is moved out too quickly or if too much pressure is applied on TSMC to create a supply chain that excludes China, Clifford warns it would cause “serious friction’’ with Beijing.

<TSMC broke ground on a $12 billion plant in the US in June last year and it’s scheduled to start producing 5-nanometer chips in 2024. It may add up to five additional fabs on the site

>Asked how likely it is that 3-nanometer chips will in future be produced in either the US or Japan, a TSMC spokesperson said, “TSMC does not rule out any future possibilities

Sauce
https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-risk-sees-taiwans-tsmc-moving-chip-fabs-overseas


<this the biggest red flag yet that they are planning to start a war there soon
You could certainly interpret this as the imperial bourgeoisie removing all the important stuff from Taiwan before they turn it into a war-zone.
The official line is less ominous, they state that their intent is to hedge their bets in case China cuts off access to Taiwan, securing supply lines so to speak.

It could be both.

you can really see a big jump when the anti china propaganda machine was switched into high gear.

US officials accuse China of "market distorting practices"

The astonishing aspect is that they can still say that without bursting into flames from intense hypocrisy, after unleashing all those market distorting sanctions over the last decade.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=BEqmQkKlcjo

<One man, two cups: Is President Xi’s double tea a power move?
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-64897273
https://www.rocketnews.com/2023/03/one-man-two-cups-is-president-xis-double-tea-a-power-move/
https://sendstory.co/news/one-man-two-cups-is-16783602625160

<Analysis: Xi Jinping's two cups signal there's plenty of hot tea left
https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/China-up-close/Analysis-Xi-Jinping-s-two-cups-signal-there-s-plenty-of-hot-tea-left
https://www.cultivateleadership.org/articles/2021/3/26/xi-jinpings-two-cups-signal-theres-plenty-of-hot-tea-left

Buckle up everybody it's DOUBLE CUP time

<Saudi Arabia and Iran agree to resume bilateral ties and reopen embassies after intense negotiations held in Beijing, China

the Middle-East is becoming West-Asia

I guess this is the consequence of the oil-price-cap, the Saudis really didn't like that one.

<China's legislature is set to approve an administrative overhaul this week that would put public security, financial regulation and technology – areas now handled by the state – under direct Communist Party control.
<Officials in the State Council, China's cabinet, presented a finance and technology reform proposal to the National People's Congress on Tuesday. It will be officially approved Friday.
<The proposed reforms will create a new Central Financial Work Commission taking over regulation of industries such as banking and insurance, along with some duties of the central bank. A new party-controlled commission will be formed to oversee technology development and education.

https://archive.ph/epf0d

China is turning up the socialism knob in response to the US turning up the big-power competition knob

>>467025
In effect they are regulating big-finance and big-tech.

Consider this:
Large private corporations are organizations that do not grant any influence on their decision making by the general public.
The communist party is a political organization that grants the general public at least some influence.

I think this represents a small net gain of agency for the masses.

>>467029
Consider this:
So long as it doesn't have a monopoly, you can opt out of purchasing from a corporation, thereby influencing it. Likewise, laws and regulations can be passed, presumptively through electorial and representative means, thereby additionally influencing them.

Also
>The communist party is a political organization that grants the general public at least some influence.
Source: it just does, ok

>>467029
Socialism is when regulations

>>467030
>So long as it doesn't have a monopoly, you can opt out of purchasing from a corporation, thereby influencing it.
No this is not real influence, you can only choose from the options that corporations give you. Real influence is when you can influence what choices are being made available. See for example smartphones where the head-phone-jack, removable batteries and sd-card memory, has almost disappeared as an option. It was corporate bureaucracy that decided to remove these features against popular will.

<The communist party is a political organization that grants the general public at least some influence.
>Source: it just does, ok
Outside the comically shrill imperialist narrative of "autotarian totaloltarian rageemes" that can magically remote control a billion people by sheer willpower, it's well understood that all governments are subject to pressure from popular opinion.
Besides that the Chinese communist do practice a form of democratic consent seeking that they call "deliberative democracy"
I don't know how well deliberative democracy works, because it's almost impossible to find out objective information about China because there is so much noise from anti-china propaganda now.

>>467031
>Socialism is when regulations
not as an end-point, but as an intermediate step, it can be.

>>467190
Seems legit.

>>467033
>as an intermediate step, it can be.
Point to a single example in history where a friendlier, regulated capitalism ever led to worker control over the means of production.

>>467199
Point to a single example in history when anything led to a worker's control of the means of production.

>>467199
China is not a capitalist country. The Chinese capitalists do not have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that puts them above the law. If the Chinese bourgeoisie would attempt to overthrow the Chinese state, they would be put against the wall, imprisoned or exiled.

So given the realities of political power in China, they do have a very good chance at genuinely regulating a private capitalist sector, until it fades away because the capitalist mode of production has been made irrelevant by changes in the material conditions. They aren't weak like social democratic governments in the past where material progress for the conditions of the workers could be reversed. Of course there still is some danger that China will have a regression too, that's always going to remain a possibility until the capitalist mode of production has been rendered non-viable by the motions of history.

It also depends on what is being regulated, the Chinese appear to be reasonably good at regulating the bourgeoisie rather than the behavior of the masses. Of course they do sometimes miss the mark. Recently youth video-game addiction became a problem in China and they put in a state-mandated time-limit for how long Chinese minors can play games. They should have banned the addictive interaction-loops that replicate casino gambling addiction instead.

To answer your question, how is China going to realize worker control over the means of production.
At the moment they aren't really doing that.
I saw someone explain it rather aptly like this:
<capitalism is violence and you can't blame the Chinese for using it as a tool to fight against capitalist imperialism.
It's a concession to material reality where they have to fight against an imperial power that wants to prevent them from developing. At the moment their principle goal is to navigate the decline of the US empire relatively unscathed.

The stuff from this post >>467010 that's a direct consequence of the US's high-tech embargo. The socialist ideological element is mainly that the intervention from the Communist party is to direct development towards what's most suited for advancing the productive forces rather then doing what's most profitable. In that particular area the Chinese communists are orthodox Marxists. Marx thought that socialism needed the most advanced productive forces and they do too. They think that one of the things that brought the Soviet Union down was that it wasn't able to out-tech the US during the cold-war.

If you are in the west you should push for worker control of the means of production because there is no big capitalist power that could existentially threaten the west, but you can't blame the Chinese socialist for making surviving against imperialism their priority.

>>467201
Spoken like someone from Austin or Boulder.

>>467201
>Chinese socialist
China is not socialist

>>467201
>China is not a capitalist country.
Sure, if you define capitalism in a completely vague, self-serving, mealy-mouthed manner that renders it a functionally useless word. Of course in the real world capitalism is a mode of production where someone invests in materials, tools, land, etc. and worker wages in order to sell the resulting product for more value than they started with–China has all of that in spades.

>>467256
that AI is awesome
they all look the same

>>467256
Of course this is a daft idea, but consider that this is most likely a pilot project, where they are doing a trial run. Chinese politics is very experimentalist, they will try out just about everything and ruthlessly scrap the experiments that didn't work out.

It's not like in the west, where once something like this gets installed it's already decided and a done deal and it takes decades of political struggle or sustained vandalism to get rid of it again.

>>467367
t. Burger without a passport

>>467202
>>467368
looks like baiting for personal information