Anyone know what this guys deal is? I dont read Jacobin a ton but this article surprised even me. Guess Jacobin is angling to be bought up by NYTimes in a couple of years.
China’s growth model is tied to decentralized industrial and infrastructure spending at the municipal level not American style property investment
Again westerners don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about and just project their basket case economies onto the rest of the world
leftcom is when you materially analyze the political economy of a nation instead of being deluded
Love 2 pretend Deng doesn't exist and China just forgot all about Socialism after Mao
It’s not left com though? leftcoms don’t give so much shit about profitability
I think that user meant that the "inter-capitalist competition" line where they pretend China and the USA are the same is typically an ultraleft """point""". But yeah, Jacobin aren't leftcoms.
Honey, it’s 4pm, time get spoon fed idiotic misunderstanding under the guise of a correct title :yes-honey-left:
Michael Hudson , he has a pro-China bias and has worked with China. He is also a serious academic Marxist economist .
If you can sift through the neoliberal bias, a lot of decent info can be found. China is in a weird spot, but not for the reasons western blue checks say
Jacobin and their connected podcast probably say more negative things about China than the Democratic Party on a weekly basis.
Jacobin, the DSA will never ever have a fight to pick with China, we are currently getting stabbed in an alleyway by the Democrats.
Jacobin advertises on twitter, I see a promoted tweet of theirs every so often. I only mention this so that we all understand that even though there may be a few good writers, jacobin itself seems quite comfortable existing under capitalism and selling “radical” dreams
Long article. Got through the first section. Way to miss the point, even though the headline is correct
Like the article makes sense, I just dont know how accurate any of it is, nor is it clear as to what the authors point of reference is. Also he seems to be contradicting himself when he says that China is capitalist and is driven by the profit motive, but then also says that they are squeezing out more lucrative private investment via the less lucrative public sector. Like I get there is nuance of positions in that tangle, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that and just breezes past.
