Just the mention of “planners” (central planners of Mao’s era) is seen as a joke among top Chinese economists, and is often used in a derogative manner.
Can't remember who explained this in a talk, it's either Mark Blythe, Richard Wolf or David Harvey but I can't remember which or what talk it comes from :(.
China's economy isn't a centrally planned one, It's still state controlled but it's in large parts decentralised. When the Chinese state wants something done it tells all districts (not Chinese so don't know the proper term) what they want to achieve, officials in districts determine their own course of action and the central government makes the money available. Some of the districts waste the money on corruption, some of them fail, but a few succeed. The government then goes to the district that succeeds and gets all other districts to replicate what they have done. This allows china's economy to run multiple parallel economic experiments and find the best solution.
China has also resisted privatized banking as I believe they know that wallstreet will use a privatized banking system to loot the country (se Greece etc. etc). This is also a large part how companies in China are able to out compete western companies, the major state owned ventures can simply go to the central banks and borrow at almost non existent rates for near indefinite periods of time. It's a huge competitive advantage over the west, and angers western capital to no end. China is essentially running the largest venture capital fund in the world.
I see this as an evolution of the USSR's state capitalist model, it's still state control of the economy but its not the old style centralized planning that many western economist have critiqued greatly.
I can't speak to whether or not the Chinese government subscribes to the "eternal growth" ideology that has infect western ideology. It's clear that china benefits from growth right now as it's still raising the living standards of the population, but they have shown themselves willing to limit growth before.
Edit: Thanks for the info about the floods, shows how insular western media is, haven’t seen any stories about this anywhere.
When the Chinese state wants something done it tells all districts what they want to achieve, officials in districts determine their own course of action and the central government makes the money available
Interesting, that's exactly how Brazil's universal health system works. Every single building has a lot of autonomy (one little health unit will determine what goal they want to achieve within the community, then get the resources), and the biggest problems arise from where they don't (commissioned chairs get us health secretaries that don't have any experience in health, for example, so the federal money leaks into their pockets and the rest is badly distributed - in my city, it's some random lawyer). I've asked many professionals during classes and literally every single one of them confirmed me that the health system would be 1000 times better if the professionals could decide the funding between themselves
Not familiar enough with the details to say if its the exact same thing, sounds similar from what i can grok from the wikipedia, though china doesn't pretend it's internal market is a free market, It's very clearly heavily regulated.
I would also caution against view this as a linear sequence of events. One of the best points that Richard Wolf makes is that the USSR was an experiment, an attempt at building an alternative to capitalism, viewing the USSR as the holy text that must be followed is a bad idea as it in the end did collapse.
I try to see what the Chinese are doing in much the same way. An attempt at finding new paths while learning from the worst failures of the USSR.
This sounds familiar, I think I remember hearing something like it in one of those live Wolff update episodes from d@w where he talks for an hour or two in the lecture hall. I’ll link the playlist when I get to my desktop
-I am still looking for the video... maybe it was a mark blyth one after all?
why are all the famous economists - the economist superstars, the ones who made front pages in Chinese news, the ones who are most influential in China’s economic reform policies, the ones that the central leadership relied on - are all neoclassical or Austrian school trained economists?
Right and along the way you have to cleverly manage class conflict and contradictions. Classes aren't going to just disappear in a very short time because you really want them too. There have been enough attempts at Marxism to show that the elimination of something as ingrained as class is extremely difficult long term task.
If the most well intentioned marxists leaders took control of China tomorrow morning, it would still take decades if not generations to eliminate class and the state.
deleted by creator
Can't remember who explained this in a talk, it's either Mark Blythe, Richard Wolf or David Harvey but I can't remember which or what talk it comes from :(.
China's economy isn't a centrally planned one, It's still state controlled but it's in large parts decentralised. When the Chinese state wants something done it tells all districts (not Chinese so don't know the proper term) what they want to achieve, officials in districts determine their own course of action and the central government makes the money available. Some of the districts waste the money on corruption, some of them fail, but a few succeed. The government then goes to the district that succeeds and gets all other districts to replicate what they have done. This allows china's economy to run multiple parallel economic experiments and find the best solution.
China has also resisted privatized banking as I believe they know that wallstreet will use a privatized banking system to loot the country (se Greece etc. etc). This is also a large part how companies in China are able to out compete western companies, the major state owned ventures can simply go to the central banks and borrow at almost non existent rates for near indefinite periods of time. It's a huge competitive advantage over the west, and angers western capital to no end. China is essentially running the largest venture capital fund in the world.
I see this as an evolution of the USSR's state capitalist model, it's still state control of the economy but its not the old style centralized planning that many western economist have critiqued greatly.
deleted by creator
I can't speak to whether or not the Chinese government subscribes to the "eternal growth" ideology that has infect western ideology. It's clear that china benefits from growth right now as it's still raising the living standards of the population, but they have shown themselves willing to limit growth before.
Edit: Thanks for the info about the floods, shows how insular western media is, haven’t seen any stories about this anywhere.
Great comment, saved
Interesting, that's exactly how Brazil's universal health system works. Every single building has a lot of autonomy (one little health unit will determine what goal they want to achieve within the community, then get the resources), and the biggest problems arise from where they don't (commissioned chairs get us health secretaries that don't have any experience in health, for example, so the federal money leaks into their pockets and the rest is badly distributed - in my city, it's some random lawyer). I've asked many professionals during classes and literally every single one of them confirmed me that the health system would be 1000 times better if the professionals could decide the funding between themselves
You are saying China today is like if the SU stuck to the NEP instead of moving to a top down planned economy
Not familiar enough with the details to say if its the exact same thing, sounds similar from what i can grok from the wikipedia, though china doesn't pretend it's internal market is a free market, It's very clearly heavily regulated.
I would also caution against view this as a linear sequence of events. One of the best points that Richard Wolf makes is that the USSR was an experiment, an attempt at building an alternative to capitalism, viewing the USSR as the holy text that must be followed is a bad idea as it in the end did collapse.
I try to see what the Chinese are doing in much the same way. An attempt at finding new paths while learning from the worst failures of the USSR.
Today I learned what the word grok means
you're now my water brother
Oh that'd be David Harvey. I remember re-watching his talks on China and mentioned that. I don't recall which video it was specifically though.
This sounds familiar, I think I remember hearing something like it in one of those live Wolff update episodes from d@w where he talks for an hour or two in the lecture hall. I’ll link the playlist when I get to my desktop
-I am still looking for the video... maybe it was a mark blyth one after all?
deleted by creator
Because of deng
The job of the Marxist state is to manage class conflict and contradiction, not pretend they don't exist.
We say the end result of that in the USSR. It wasn't sustainable and now the ex Soviet block is neo liberal hell holes.
The Chinese are well aware of this and conciously avoiding the Soviet model because, well, it completely backfired...
deleted by creator
Marx advocated for taking control of the state apparatus in order to elimate class.
deleted by creator
Right and along the way you have to cleverly manage class conflict and contradictions. Classes aren't going to just disappear in a very short time because you really want them too. There have been enough attempts at Marxism to show that the elimination of something as ingrained as class is extremely difficult long term task.
If the most well intentioned marxists leaders took control of China tomorrow morning, it would still take decades if not generations to eliminate class and the state.
wow this chomsky is way more based
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Where does the seeming pivot under Xi fit in?
I’m thinking in particular of the crackdown on liberal economists, and the caution against neoliberalism in this party-wide document.
deleted by creator
The link to the party document is the same as the Bloomberg article.
Fixed
QS theory?
deleted by creator