i think the principal point of the article is correct despite the bias in saying that china is a semi periphery imperialist/ized country at least for the moment.

although that doesn't say much for what the implication is when they are no longer semi periphery.

I mean at the end of the day the CCP is adopting an agenda and moving in that direction with auch longer term plan than any western government

That’s mostly what I’m commentating on

is that agenda socialism tho,

Hasn’t Xi been talking about further privatization

i do really like Zizek take on how revisionist communist parties become the best managers of capitalism

Oh yeah I’m just saying that’s what I’m labeling as “China”

If the capitalists co-opted Marxist theory before the leninists they would’ve won

I think the article's main point of being correct is yeah, China obviously isn't imperialist in the way the british empire or something was, but that can be concluded without real number crunching or a***ysis. the question of if they are/aren't "exploitative" (exploitative being distinct from "imperialist"), is another question. However, another bigger question is obviously if international cooperation done for nationalistic purposes is justifiable irregardless of ideology, and how much of that should therefore be chalked up to assumption of ideological merit (they're only doing it because socialism by 2040 guys we promise).

Now, like, because like BRI is obviously not wealth extraction in the same way as, say, american companies setting up lithium mines or something, there is an inherently big difference conversationally. Obviously China is ultimately the winner of BRI though, but more than "China" as some abstract conglomerate (or ideological institution), it's chinese businesses, of which the relationship to the government is adjacent at best. China is hardly the only country to engage in international trade/infrastructure investment. So the question becomes like, at what level is it okay to excuse it relative to other countries. I think the obvious answer most people have is like "well they don't participate in regime change or interference beyond economic cooperation (exploitative or otherwise)", which for the majority of left-leaning (and many right leaning) people is probably good enough of an alternative to otherwise global powers.

Well, the West is a s***show in terms of leftist ideology, so that's not saying very much, but I agree.

I just don't believe the CCP has the interests of the workers. They still retain significant socialist influence, absolutely, but they seem to be restoring capitalism when it benefits the country, rather than genuinely combatting it. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Really it's that suite of Politburo like Xi Jinping and Liu He that makes me worried about the country's future. I don't have enough knowledge or insight about portions like the Central Committee for me to really comment about it

it has the interests of workers insofar as it has the interest of its citizens, but not necessarily the interest of citizens as workers if that makes sense. Much of China's policy can really be understood more easily if you look at China in the position the US was in like, WW1/pre-WW1. The idea of this broad american dream existing which any of its citizens could achieve but with this coat of ideological paint which is largely disseminated through rhetoric paired with policy and reform rather than policy. It definitely bolsters what their citizens want to hear (and does in fact help them - the same way even lower class people in the US benefit from say, the US's global status), but it's not necessarily because it abolishes capitalism or anything.
While their foreign policy is certainly friendlier than the modern US, a lot of it is rested on one assumption - that such companies with play nice with China. Their foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum, even their recognition of govts seen as fringe by the west (say, taliban in afghanistan), rests mainly on the assumption of it being mutual (which could of course, be said of most diplomacy from any country, but that's kind of the point). However, I would say this differs from many others in that, the obvious assumption is that China is at the center of this new segment of foreign policy paradigm. So like "we want a peaceful and flourishing world, just one where we reap influence", which isn't really far off from the US leading up WW1.

That's kinda what I was leaning towards. There's a unity, but it's not based on class, it's bordering nationalism, but not quite (maybe it is). That's what I was trying to explain where CCP members may not have a personal, monetary interest through lobbying, such as current-day US, in maintaining and restoring capitalism, but a broader ideological goal of making China as strong as possible to be recognized on a grander world stage as the one running the show.

That comes with policy, both foreign and domestic, that may benefit working class persons, but they won't say no to stimulus packages and policies that benefits businesspersons and the wealthy either, if it assists in making the country seem stronger on a global stage.

If we're aligning on that. Not sure

part of this makes sense
part of it make me want die

miss my bro goon @cloud_rap stay strong

somebody needs 2 restore the feeling

couple more days

What happened

Got muted for calling Americans tartarded

f*** the CCP point blank

But we are

It was in life sxn

Bro was fed up lmao

it was more to it though

You just had to be in the right timezone for it I guess

all im gonna say is never bring up timezones on internet forums

t***z***s

I just read the thread. That s*** got me crying

But yea not much point in a timezone existing beyond CST

If it happens it happens, but I don't think the country with the most billionaires in the world is about to flip on the socialism switch.

Pretending to be capitalist while also pretending to be socialist out smarting them all.