very interesting recent speech about xi's intentions on the present direction of common prosperity.
seems like this bit about social democracy is getting some controversy - online :hahaha:
" It is necessary to improve the system of public service policies and systems. To promote common prosperity, we must not engage in "welfare". At that time, some Latin American countries engaged in populism, and high welfare raised a group of "lazy people" and unearned incomes. As a result, the national finances were overwhelmed and fell into the "middle-income trap", unable to extricate themselves for a long time. Welfare benefits can't come down if they go up, and "welfareism" that exceeds one's ability is unsustainable and will inevitably bring about serious economic and political problems! We must adhere to doing our best and do what we can, focusing on improving the level of public services, accurately providing basic public services in the fields of education, medical care, elderly care, housing and other areas that the people are most concerned about, and taking care of the basic living bottom line of the people in need, without raising the bar. Appetite, not empty promises."
also interesting bit explaining xi's approach to market socialism
" The second question: correctly understand and grasp the characteristics and behavioral laws of capital. Marx and Engels did not envisage that a market economy could be developed under socialist conditions, and of course they could not foresee how socialist countries would treat capital. Although Lenin and Stalin led the socialist construction of the Soviet Union, at that time the Soviet Union implemented a highly centralized planned economic system and basically did not encounter large-scale capital problems. To engage in a socialist market economy is a great creation of our party. Since it is a socialist market economy, it will inevitably produce various forms of capital. Although there are many differences between capital in capitalist society and capital in socialist society, capital is all about chasing profits. "The people of the world are wealthy, and the wealth of the world is governed by the law." We should explore how to play the positive role of capital under the conditions of a socialist market economy, while effectively controlling the negative role of capital. In recent years, due to lack of awareness and lack of supervision, some areas of our country have experienced disorderly expansion of capital, wanton manipulation, and profiteering. This requires regulating the behavior of capital, seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages, not allowing "capital predators" to act recklessly, but also giving full play to the function of capital as a factor of production. This is a major political and economic issue that cannot be avoided."
he goes over a lot of important shit to take note of so def check it out hexers :logo:
deleted by creator
Welfare isn't the reason that the Western middle class is shrinking. Substitute incomes like state pensions, unemployment benefits and so forth are counted in the part of the national income that goes to labour, so their decrease means per definition that the income of the non-capitalists shrinks. The shrinking of the welfare-state is an important aspect of the well known decrease of compensation/productivity: if workers have alternative forms of income, then capitalists are obligated to raise wages. So in reality we're seeing the opposite of the argument you're making here.
deleted by creator
I think an interesting example of "Welfareism" here would be how Walmart has guides for their employees to fill out financial assistance for housing and food rather than actually paying enough to not need assistance. Welfare for the working popukation is a good fix to a bad society, but you would rather not have that bad society to begin with. This type of welfare is a bandaid for a wound that should never have occurred the first place.
Obviously those who are disabled or unable to work full hours are a different group and I don't think that support belongs in the same category as support for the working poor does.
deleted by creator
It seems to me that he is referring to corporate welfare / providing universal welfare to rich people who dont need help and the fact that welfare is not possible in many parts of undeveloped and insecure rural China. He goes on later to talk about bolstering public services to a base level and ensuring their quality with the implication that they will do public 'welfare' in the future when it is not an empty promise. They seem to be very worried about promising something and then not following through or failing.
yea i think he is trying to get across that despite being "socialist" the current goal (whether this is the best path or not being unclear obviously) isn't to redistribute wealth by buttressing people's material wealth but rather to create robust social systems.
obviously there is extreme wealth disparity if you compare the most economically active to the least economically active and you could argue for much stricter redistribution but im not a chinese demsoc so i assume that they just have a good reason for it :party-blob:
deleted by creator
I hope you're right
deleted by creator