/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Gotta get those finance capitalists under control so that the industrial capitalists can remain dominant.

>>476551
Ohhh.. that's what's going on.

So what's playing out here is Marx's old prediction where industrial capital and money capital would eventually get into a fight and then industrial capital wins and subordinates Finance to it's needs.

The People's Democratic Dictatorship does not tolerate vapid thottery

>>476550
From what I can tell
>1. Xi’s Main line tends to be anti corruption and counter-subversion.
>2. The 2008 crisis was a huge moment for neoliberalism but for china as well
I feel like xi really tries to be vigilant against any attempts to create scenarios that would result in a similar crisis. Like another anon said also, I think he is trying to keep the industrial sector prevalent also to reinforce this and maintain an economy backed by productive labor

>>476595
With
<counter-subversion
<vigilance against scenarios that would result in 2008 type crisis
You mean the neo-liberal shock-mechanism where a crisis like the 2008 financial crash enables a part of the bourgeoisie to elevate it self to big-bourgeois status that can gain control over the state to impose it's interests against all other interests at a great detriment of society.

The CPC seems to have won every battle of that type. All the mega-porkies that entered the ring of political power got K.O.ed in round one. So the CPC seems to have the strength of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in that metaphor. I wish i knew how they do it. But i also worry, the neo-liberal tendency that has so utterly wrecked the west, still persists in China. I'm assuming that the Chinese transition to full communism will probably take at least the rest of this century, will they really be able to keep this up for several generations ?

I always wondered about whether there isn't a structural fix so that the economic system doesn't generate the Neo-liberal tendency, making it less necessary to fight these battles in the first place

>I think he is trying to keep the industrial sector prevalent also to reinforce this and maintain an economy backed by productive labor
Yes this is another question that i have. Is this priority for an industrial productive labor based economy a political choice ? Or is it simply an organic manifestation of China having the largest industrial base of the world. The west lost it's industrial base because western capitalists could simply outsource industry to China. Chinese porkies can't do the same because there is nowhere to outsource too. And a organic tendency towards socialism begins manifesting as soon as a significant enough concentration of advanced productive forces accumulate, or something like that.

>>476596
>The CPC seems to have won every battle of that type.
Oh, is that why China has the most billionaires of any country? Because the party that's supposed to be fighting for workers is winning the battle of control over the state against the bourgeoisie? Anecdotes for this time or that time when the party punished a specific porkster don't tell the story of a country of 1.4 billion people. The proof is in aggregate: China's bourgeoisie are allowed to accumulate so much power that they become billionaires. And lots of them.

>>476597
>China's bourgeoisie are allowed to accumulate so much power that they become billionaires
At least from the outside it looks like they were allowed to accumulate wealth but not power.

And the number of Chinese billionaires has begun to shrink and so has wealth inequality.

>>476597
>muh billionaires argument
How are they billionaires TRULY? They don’t have free rein of their assets. They can’t leave the country with their assets. If they use their assets in a way that goes against state plans they get shut down. If they use their assets in a corrupt way they get shut down. Yes they are corporate execs with billions in their pocket (on paper) but they can’t really do anything with it can they? Imagine having millions in your account but have strict limits in how you can use them as well having obligations in how to spend your own money. Would you truly be a millionaire in the neoliberal sense?

>>476599
>billionaire in formal appearance but not in practical substance.
Interesting concept

>Would you truly be a billionaire in the neoliberal sense?
Right it would be interesting to actually define "a billionaire in the neoliberal sense"

Or perhaps in less abstract terms what are differences in powers that a billionaire for example in the US has compared to one in China.
You already mentioned asset-mobility and spending-obligations

>>476598
>accumulate wealth but not power
Anon… do I really need to explain how wealth accumulation in industrial production happens in the first place? It's through exploitation: workers not being paid the full value of their labor. To accumulate wealth, you do so at the expense of workers, and yes, that includes worker disempowerment.

>>476601
I agree that Chinese workers are exploited.
But i disagree that the Chinese bourgeoisie has gained state-power.