Radlibs think that if you disavow Socialism every three seconds you can gain mainstream credibility and then convince everyone to do Socialism But Good This Time.
The question of China has persistently bedeviled the global left.
No it doesn't. Pretty much the vast majority of communists and most socialists are on board with China. The only major parties who don't like China are the various MLM parties and the Communist Party of Japan. Everyone else is too insignificant to bother mentioning. No one care that your Hoxhaist party with De Leonist characteristics of 10 people thinks every Chinese socialist from Mao to Xi was revisionist. Chavez's and Maduro's party the PSUV alone is 7 million strong. There probably aren't even that many anti-China socialists unless you start counting random Sinophobic radlibs as socialists.
an authoritarian form of capitalism that fluctuates with the booms and busts of the global market
Just like how the Chinese economy busted during the 1997 Asian financial crisis or the Great Recession or the Covid Recession. "Oh no, China's economy grew by 4.9% instead of the projected 5.2%" doesn't count as "fluctuating with the busts of the global market."
In short, trash-tier article from the Jacobin. But then again, what else do we expect from them?
They get to feel correct and right, affirmed by their Western and largely liberal sources. Western leftists tend to treat socialism as a form of personal growth and self-actualization by having The Best Takes.
Because liberals have the cultural status as the good boys and girls who are tolerant and went to college. I guess if you work at a high profile magazine in NYC then your social circle will include ivy league liberals, so that probably impacts who you look up to.
They might not even be aware that it's liberals or they may just think of them as leftists, which is vague enough to include a ton of liberals.
Sometimes they're being strategic and do actually explicitly target a liberal audience. They think they're doing agitprop. Sometimes it's because they think they'll convince people to check out socialism if they distance themselves from the enemies of the US State Department.
But honestly I don't think they think about it that deeply most of the time. They might think they're being strategic but they haven't critically analyzed their approach. IMO this follows from that self-actualization tendency, which is the same one driving pointless online infighting (to be distinguished from necessary policing against V*ushites and reactionaries and so on).
That's a good question, and the answer is dozens of different ideologies that disagree with each other on all kinds of things and have no single organization or ideology that represents them.
I don't think Jacobin has a single ideological framework that they enforce, they publish stuff from all over the place.
Did the CPC even actually have term limits? I'm unclear if they changed the rules with Xi or if the rule was just some unwritten thing or if the western media just made it up entirely?
It was a de facto term limit. The truce made among the CPC was that every president gets two 5 year terms and then the next generation takes over. This provides for an orderly transition and everyone gets a chance to move up.
Xi regards himself as indispensable and nobody else can do the job the way he can. So he had himself written into the constitution and he'll basically be president-for-life now. This is causing everyone else in the CPC to be unable to advance a rank. They're all stuck where they are, and it's not going to change while Xi is alive. He's got another three decades of rule in him.
deleted by creator
Radlibs think that if you disavow Socialism every three seconds you can gain mainstream credibility and then convince everyone to do Socialism But Good This Time.
Who would've thought that "NOT REAL SOCIALISM" sounds like extreme cope!?
"Literally every socialism that has existed was wrong, but we'll get it right this time"
No it doesn't. Pretty much the vast majority of communists and most socialists are on board with China. The only major parties who don't like China are the various MLM parties and the Communist Party of Japan. Everyone else is too insignificant to bother mentioning. No one care that your Hoxhaist party with De Leonist characteristics of 10 people thinks every Chinese socialist from Mao to Xi was revisionist. Chavez's and Maduro's party the PSUV alone is 7 million strong. There probably aren't even that many anti-China socialists unless you start counting random Sinophobic radlibs as socialists.
Just like how the Chinese economy busted during the 1997 Asian financial crisis or the Great Recession or the Covid Recession. "Oh no, China's economy grew by 4.9% instead of the projected 5.2%" doesn't count as "fluctuating with the busts of the global market."
In short, trash-tier article from the Jacobin. But then again, what else do we expect from them?
They get to feel correct and right, affirmed by their Western and largely liberal sources. Western leftists tend to treat socialism as a form of personal growth and self-actualization by having The Best Takes.
deleted by creator
Because liberals have the cultural status as the good boys and girls who are tolerant and went to college. I guess if you work at a high profile magazine in NYC then your social circle will include ivy league liberals, so that probably impacts who you look up to.
deleted by creator
They might not even be aware that it's liberals or they may just think of them as leftists, which is vague enough to include a ton of liberals.
Sometimes they're being strategic and do actually explicitly target a liberal audience. They think they're doing agitprop. Sometimes it's because they think they'll convince people to check out socialism if they distance themselves from the enemies of the US State Department.
But honestly I don't think they think about it that deeply most of the time. They might think they're being strategic but they haven't critically analyzed their approach. IMO this follows from that self-actualization tendency, which is the same one driving pointless online infighting (to be distinguished from necessary policing against V*ushites and reactionaries and so on).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That's a good question, and the answer is dozens of different ideologies that disagree with each other on all kinds of things and have no single organization or ideology that represents them.
I don't think Jacobin has a single ideological framework that they enforce, they publish stuff from all over the place.
Is Jacobin describe the US or China in there? Lol, can’t make sense of it
Did the CPC even actually have term limits? I'm unclear if they changed the rules with Xi or if the rule was just some unwritten thing or if the western media just made it up entirely?
deleted by creator
Jiang served three terms as CPC head, 1989-2002.
deleted by creator
It was a de facto term limit. The truce made among the CPC was that every president gets two 5 year terms and then the next generation takes over. This provides for an orderly transition and everyone gets a chance to move up.
Xi regards himself as indispensable and nobody else can do the job the way he can. So he had himself written into the constitution and he'll basically be president-for-life now. This is causing everyone else in the CPC to be unable to advance a rank. They're all stuck where they are, and it's not going to change while Xi is alive. He's got another three decades of rule in him.
deleted by creator
He's the one who decides how long his term of office is. Not the Party.
Big difference there.
deleted by creator
Can you send me the Wall Street Journal article you got all this bullshit from?