Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Chinese economist Zhu Hengpeng disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported. He reportedly made comments on China's sluggish economy.
A top economist has joined the growing list of China's elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.
CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China's cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a "body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership."
According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China's sluggish economy and criticizing Xi's leadership in a private group on WeChat.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Can you elaborate? What “bottom-up” structures did he advocate for, and how, mechanically, do they differ from what modern Communists advocate for?
He constantly frames things vis-a-vis the freedom of workers and their having input in their government. Does that sound like China to you, or Cambodia under the Khmer?
When Marx advocates for Socialism, he does so on the basis of the Proletariat wresting control from the bourgeoisie via revolution, and maintaining absolute control via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, just as the bourgeoisie and proletariat together wrested control from the Monarchies.
Sure, but what he didn't advocate for is for a new form of aristocracy to emerge from within workers' ranks. I think this was Bakunin, not Marx, but the dangers of "labour aristocracy" were already known at the time.
What have you read from Marx that gives you an alternate impression? Where are you getting the idea that Marx was in favor of decentralization over centralization, when he says the direct opposite clear as day in Critique of the Gotha Programme?
I've read David Harvey's synopsis of Capital (because life is too short to read the whole thing), Gotha, and of course the Manifesto. I'm actually puzzled that you see Gotha as advocating for authoritarianism. He talks about the eradication of class and about how people should not be "ruled". Both of those things are endemic to current-day communism. I just can't imagine that Marx would look at the way the CCP operates and think that was an accurate reflection of his personal politics.
He constantly frames things vis-a-vis the freedom of workers and their having input in their government. Does that sound like China to you, or Cambodia under the Khmer?
How, exactly, does he frame them? Can you give an example? China practices Whole Process People's Democracy, which absolutely isn't liberal democracy, but does have more worker participation than Capitalist states.
As for Cambodia, the Khmer denounced Marx and were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists, no Communist supports the Khmer Rouge. No, what Marx described was not adopted by Cambodia, because the Khmer Rouge denounced Marx.
Sure, but what he didn't advocate for is for a new form of aristocracy to emerge from within workers' ranks. I think this was Bakunin, not Marx, but the dangers of "labour aristocracy" were already known at the time.
You're confused on a few things here, the Labor Aristocracy is the Proletariat that makes more than the median wages in the global context due to the impacts of Imperialism, ie in the US median Proletarian wages far exceed that of wages in Chad not because the US Proletariat magically creates more value, but because wages are higher due to vast exploitation of the Global South.
Secondly, there was not a "new form of aristocracy" in AES states. AES presented an increase in democratization, including practices like instant recall elections, and units electing delegates. These delegates weren't hereditary, had to be elected, and could be recalled at any time.
I've read David Harvey's synopsis of Capital (because life is too short to read the whole thing), Gotha, and of course the Manifesto. I'm actually puzzled that you see Gotha as advocating for authoritarianism. He talks about the eradication of class and about how people should not be "ruled". Both of those things are endemic to current-day communism. I just can't imagine that Marx would look at the way the CCP operates and think that was an accurate reflection of his personal politics.
Critique of the Gotha Programme isn't advocating for "authoritarianism," nobody does. Critique of the Gotha Programme advocates for centralization, also alluded to by the "ceasing of the anarchy of Capitalist production." Marx clearly crituques the vagueness of the Gotha Programme in question, along with its flawed conception of the state.
The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
Engels elaborates in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (itself a phenomenal work that I highly recommend reading after this conversation), what form of government a Communist society would look like as Marx alludes to in Gotha:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
You can see that, rather than the anarchy of decentralization, Marx and Engels advocated for centralization. The "centralized" society has no State, but it does have an Administration of Things. Think the Post-Office, and how it still has managers and administrators. These structures remain even into Communism, after Socialism, yet they aren't considered a "state" by Marx nor Engels.
I won't reply to all that because you've either moved the goalposts or misunderstood my original point. To wit:
Critique of the Gotha Programme isn’t advocating for “authoritarianism,” nobody does.
Tankies are quintessentially authoritarian. That's what I've been saying since the beginning. I agree that Marx doesn't advocate for it, which is why I suggested he'd be repelled by tankies.
I won't reply to all that because you've either moved the goalposts or misunderstood my original point.
How can you say that without responding? It seems like you ignored what I wrote, with careful, direct references to Marx and Engels. If I am going to put in the effort of taking everything you said into consideration and responding to the best of my abilities, the least you can do is acknowledge it honestly, not dissavow my efforts entirely. I haven't undermined your ability to understand what I am talking about, nor accused you of moving the goal posts, so I'd like respect in kind.
Tankies are quintessentially authoritarian. That's what I've been saying since the beginning. I agree that Marx doesn't advocate for it, which is why I suggested he'd be repelled by tankies.
You've been saying this without qualifiers. Advocating for "authoritarianism" isn't a thing, hence Engels writing On Authority to debunk the very subject entirely. You have yet to meaningfully prove that Communists advocate for a different system and a different process than what Marx and Engels did. Saying that Communists advocate for "authoritarianism" doesn't mean anything, what structures do Communists advocate for that go against Marx?
I can't parse what you're trying to say here. I suspect we're talking past each other because you're arguing from a purely academic point of view, rather than taking actual self-proclaimed communist states into account. Do you believe China is communist? How about the USSR?
I'm arguing for academic analysis of self-proclaimed Marxists.
China is Socialist. It practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over a Market Economy. The CPC is Communist by ideology, but of course they haven't achieved Communism yet, nor do they claim to. They tried to directly implement Communism under Mao and later under the Gang of Four, which ended up being a critical error in judgement as the Means of Production were not at all developed enough for it, hence the Gang of Four claiming it was "better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism."
The USSR was Socialist. They never achieved Communism, largely due to refusing to interlock with the rest of the world economy. While they managed to provide many critical necessities like healthcare, education, and so forth for free, shutting out the global market led to consumer jealousy over consumer commodities from the west, which led to democratically instating liberal market reforms, which worked against the centralized nature of the economy, leading to its dissolution.
So your stance is essentially "real communism has never been tried"? Technically correct, I suppose, but what really matters is the actions of people who claim to be communists. I refer back to my first post in this conversation where I said "insofar as those labels are used today". I can't think of a single practical implementation of political systems by these self-proclaimed communists that makes me think "this is what Marx would have wanted".
No, his stance is that Communism, or as I believe Marx called it upper stage communism, has not been achieved. Lower stage communism‒or socialism‒has, as seen in China and the USSR. Both of these are/were communist, as in they are/were led by Marxist/communist parties working towards Communism.
If you truly believe they are "working towards communism", I don't think any amount of evidence or differing interpretations of the data will sway your faith.
So your stance is essentially "real communism has never been tried"?
No. My stance is that Communism is a stage of development that comes after Socialism, and no existing Socialist society has yet made it to Communism. This is the standard Marxist view of societal development, you cannot adopt Communism through fiat. The CPC tried under Mao and the Gang of Four, and failed because they didn't develop the Means of Production beforehand.
Technically correct, I suppose, but what really matters is the actions of people who claim to be communists. I refer back to my first post in this conversation where I said "insofar as those labels are used today". I can't think of a single practical implementation of political systems by these self-proclaimed communists that makes me think "this is what Marx would have wanted".
Then I suggest you explain why. I have offered context and analysis of the USSR and PRC as they directly relate to Marx and Engels, without needing to reference Lenin or other Marxists. I would say my number one reading recommendation, if you don't feel like elaborating on why you believe AES states to be not "Marx approved," would be Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. Additionally, the previously linked Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is critical for understanding the Marxist theory of development via Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
Then I suggest you explain why.
Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time. You're posting in a thread about China's leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I'm not sure how much clearer this could all be.
Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time.
I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything. Simply saying "the vibes they give off are scary and the vibes have been getting stronger over time" is not mechanical analysis.
You're posting in a thread about China's leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I'm not sure how much clearer this could all be.
You'll forgive me for taking the nuances of a Business Insider article with respect to a Socialist country with a grain of salt. Western sources often call firing officials "disappearing" them, because they are intentionally doing Red Scare propaganda. You'll note that if you read the article, it's relatively light on facts and hard evidence, and tries to link phenomena without hard basis.
You'll also notice that the near identical story, down to the format, has been posted to other western media outlets like WSJ, in light of the US approving billions of dollars to discredit the PRC.
This is why I am asking for hard, mechanical analysis.
I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything.
This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine. I would point to the horrifically botched early response to COVID; ongoing suppression of protests on June 4th of every year; the crushing of dissent in Hong Kong; Xi's very public sidelining of Hu; the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang; mass surveillance; Xi's undoing of term limits; and the list goes on, but that should be enough to tide you over for now.
And what is authoritarianism? What are tankies?
For this to be a fruitful discussion, you two have to agree on what the definition of things are
Exactly. I think that's why we're having difficulty communicating.