Centre for Economics and Business Research says it expects this to happen half a decade sooner than it forecast a year ago

China’s share of global GDP has increased from 3.6% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2019 and will continue to grow, the CEBR said. It would pass the per capita threshold of $12,536 (£9,215) to become a high-income country by 2023.

absolutely insane

          • pinerw [he/him]
            4·
            4 years ago

            China has billionaires too, and their pockets are getting lined off China’s growth as well.

            Your take is skewing just a bit close to the Peter Singer/Malcolm Gladwell bit of “we’ve seen a huge reduction in global poverty in the last century, therefore capitalism is fundamentally fine,” just with the state taking the place of shareholders. You even talk about “pragmatism” the same way they do.

            One of the chief problems with capitalism is the exploitation of the working class, and if you don’t think that’s a central feature of state capitalism too, you really need to examine things a bit closer.

            • Zodiark
              1·
              4 months ago

              deleted by creator

              • SankaraIsMyDaddy [they/them]
                2·
                4 years ago

                So China's "state capitalism" is better than the west's "bourgeoisie capitalism", I think most of us can agree on that. But China having billionaires seems indefensible. Is it good that China has billionaires, is it a temporary but necessary part of building communism, or is it something else?

                • Zodiark
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  deleted by creator

                  • SankaraIsMyDaddy [they/them]
                    1·
                    4 years ago

                    It looks like Xi and the CPC reign in billionaires and the party/state still owns the capital goods; the party is zealous about maintaining that control. And as long as the billionaires are just rich but do not own and independently control the capital goods and properties, it keeps China stable.

                    If China owns the "capital goods", why are they allowing billionaires to siphon off so much money? Like, why not just say "hey, these capital goods are owned by China, not you, and we will be taking the profits, not you!"?

                    Hopefully it is a temporary byproduct of building socialism.

                    I sure as fuck hope it's temporary, but I wish there was a bit more certainty about exactly how (and when) China plans on getting rid of all the billionaires.

                    State capitalism is better in the sense of a planned economy under the theoretical Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in comparison to conventionally capitalist governments having state industries and using those profits for investment or dividends rather than reinvestment into the nation or region. e.g: Venezuela vs Norway’s oil industry.

                    Again, I think just about everyone on this site will agree that China's system is much better than bourgeois capitalist nations.

                    • Zodiark
                      ·
                      4 months ago

                      deleted by creator

                      • SankaraIsMyDaddy [they/them]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        I don’t know. Perhaps they fear alienating foreign investors if they just start seizing wealth; people will refuse to invest in China and any nation knows that it is forced to pay debts or not jail and seize the wealth of its billionaires/property unless they want to stop borrowing, or have capital flight from their country. China is a developing state still, and they still do need investment.

                        Is there a point where you think China could allow too much wealth to accumulate in the hands of billionaires such that it would interfere with implementing communism?

                        It is also very likely that the US will break China though.

                        Yeah... :sadness:

                • CEO_of_TrainGang [he/him]
                  3·
                  4 years ago

                  Offering African countries loans on significantly fairer terms than they could get ever get from the IMF is bullying now

                    • weshallovercum [any]
                      2·
                      4 years ago

                      I only look at actions, not at words. China doesnt invade other countries, they dont involve in the internal affairs of other countries, they dont engage in unequal exchange and exploitative trade relations. They are a million times better than the US in this regard. They also have a government that genuinely cares about the people, they implement social programs despite there not being any necessity or pressure applied on the government. Imagine that, in the West it is only the unions and political struggle that generate concessions to the working class. In China the government gives social benefits by themselves. There is a massive fucking difference.

                      Honestly, the jury is still out on whether China is actually going to move towards socialism, but based on their actual actions so far, their rise is a net positive to the entire world.

                            • weshallovercum [any]
                              1·
                              4 years ago

                              Define imperialism? More Tibetans live outside Tibet than in Tibet. When there is completely free flow of capital and labour between two societies, it is by definition not a colony. How is Hong Kong imperialism? Hong Kong was a British colony before they were given back to China. It is the opposite of imperialism. Taiwan?? That is even more inexplicable, Taiwan is a sovereign nation. What exactly is China doing to Taiwan that makes it imperialism?

                              • SankaraIsMyDaddy [they/them]
                                2·
                                4 years ago

                                Hong Kong was a British colony before they were given back to China.

                                Isn't the wording here, "given back", evidence that Hong Kong never got a chance to decide their own fate? Shouldn't Hong Kong have the right to self-determination, instead of being traded around by more powerful nations?

                                Would the same argument apply to Puerto Rico, an island that was traded between imperialist nations but never given an opportunity for self-determination?

                                • weshallovercum [any]
                                  1·
                                  4 years ago

                                  Can you define imperialism? Taiwan also considers themselves the true rulers of China. Are they imperialists too? Are both imperialist at the same time?

                            • itsPina [he/him, she/her]
                              2·
                              4 years ago

                              IDK if you like Parenti but I found this article pretty eye opening: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

                                • itsPina [he/him, she/her]
                                  1·
                                  4 years ago

                                  in short: tibet was a feudal fuckhole with actual mass slavery and the lamas literally just tortured people and kept slaves since they were in charge. All that til China came and 'annexed' them. Tibets literally a chunk of China so its kinda understandable that an army rolls in when there are tens of thousands of slaves being tortured and women being treated worse than animals. Imagine if Rhode Island tried pulling that shit.

                                    • itsPina [he/him, she/her]
                                      2·
                                      4 years ago

                                      There are dozens of sources at the bottom if you'd like to critique them. If you find any iffy stuff feel free to post. I'd love to be proven wrong because the last thing I wanna do is stan an evil country and look like a dumbass.

                                        • itsPina [he/him, she/her]
                                          2·
                                          4 years ago

                                          It's whatevs. nothing we can really do about it anyways so we will just see who is right in the end. I for one am a big fan of Noam Chomsky and he's a big proponent of this thing called 'lesser evilism' and since I see China as less evil I have to give them my undying support until either america or China comes out on top.

                                          Mostly joking.

                        • weshallovercum [any]
                          2·
                          4 years ago

                          Please give the list. This is a place for constructive discussion, don't take it as a debate. I'm saying this in good faith because a large portion of the left has internalized State Dept. propaganda and it's always useful to offer a different perspective.

                            • weshallovercum [any]
                              3·
                              4 years ago

                              Alright, can you explain what China is doing in those countries that makes it imperialism? And can you also define imperialism?

                            • JorgeWBush [he/him]
                              ·
                              4 years ago

                              Speaking as a nigerian person,the situation with Afrika is more nuanced than that.

                              Countries are seeing more real development in a few decades than they had in an epoch of european occupation.

                              Speaking to people on the ground about china, the primary complaint people had was that when building rail they use their own engineers, while the locals are largely relegated to the menial labor.

                              It doesn't exactly fill me with joy to see the petrostate taking on more foreign debt for development, but at the very least this way we are a lot more likely to avoid additional "structural readjustment".

                              Nigeria in particular seems like an odd hill to die on for "chinese imperialism" given that the country's northern region are currently occupied by US special forces.

                    • CEO_of_TrainGang [he/him]
                      2·
                      4 years ago

                      Thinking that China is a net good for the world isn’t the same as thinking China is a perfect socialist utopia, and your attempt to conflate those two is insanely disingenuous

                      When Western governments/companies do business in Africa, they do so knowing that they have the IMF and the World Bank behind them to pressure those countries into accepting their terms. China literally just doesn’t have that leverage, they couldn’t be “imperialist” even if they wanted to

                            • KamalaHarrisPOTUS [he/him]
                              1·
                              4 years ago

                              ok thats a good first step, a list of country's , now how is China bullying them?

                              https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-18/china-s-belt-and-road-project-reveals-a-key-economic-weakness

                              In Africa, many African countries (great writing there bloomberg) eagerly accepted the loans that China’s state-owned financial system offered: But this turned out to be a poisoned chalice — many of the projects that China financed were not well-thought-out, leading to a predictable wave of defaults. Many countries in Africa and elsewhere are now asking for debt relief, and it looks like China is going to take significant losses.

                              Is this source imperialist pilled enough for you?

                              I know there's a lot of editorializing arounf the actual reporting saying china bad but you really need to look at the facts presented my friend.

                                • KamalaHarrisPOTUS [he/him]
                                  ·
                                  4 years ago

                                  In total china has cancelled debt in 94 cases before this latest wave , its not a "really good thing" I suppose... but international loans are useful to developing countries, especially when put towards developing infrastructure

                                  here is another example

                                  https://www.cfr.org/blog/africa-faces-covid-19-chinese-debt-relief-welcome-development

                                  and in total, China has provided 2.1 billion in debt relief under the g20 framework alone

                                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-debt-g20-idUSKBN28009A

                                  BEIJING (Reuters) - China has extended debt relief to developing countries worth a combined $2.1 billion under the G20 framework, the highest among the group’s members in terms of the amount deferred, the country’s Finance Minister Liu Kun said on Friday.

                                  Liu’s comments come as African countries, hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, face another debt crisis, and will need more long-term help than the latest G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) offers them to ward off trouble ahead and keep much-needed investments coming in.

                                  now if you have an example of these countires being bullied by China it would be a good time to present it if you're so inclined, as my understanding of the relationships China has with the countries you listed are mutually beneficial ones

                                  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5652847de4b033f56d2bdc29/t/5efe93effc0b1550d2e8d5c3/1593742320379/PB+46+-+Acker%2C+Brautigam%2C+Huang+-+Debt+Relief.pdf

                                  here a helpful paper publishe by an American university describing at least 3.4 billion in debt cancelled

                                  IN 2000, CHINA MADE ITS FIRST DEBT cancellation pledge, which only included African countries. Since then, China has made seven debt cancellation pledges that included African countries. China’s debt cancellation pledges generally promise to cancel only the overdue part of governmental ZILs that were maturing in a particular year. Zero-interest loans are offered by China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) as part of intergovernmental Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreements. They average about US$ 10 million per loan, and make up less than five percent of China’s overall lending to Africa from 2000-2018. Importantly, the funds for zero-interest loans are accounted for in China’s annual foreign aid budget rather than raised from capital markets, which means that MOFCOM does not rely on ZIL repayment to balance their books. This, coupled with the standardized nature of ZILs, make debt cancellation negotiations relatively simple. Cancellations are negotiated bilaterally, but follow a standardized process whereby eligible countries apply, and a committee led by China’s Ministry of Finance with delegates from MOFCOM then approves or rejects the cancellation request. Between 2000 and 2019, China has cancelled at least US$ 3.4 billion of debt , almost exclusively overdue ZILs.1 Our data includes 94 cases of debt cancellation in Africa

                                • ChuckyAirLaw [none/use name]
                                  1·
                                  4 years ago

                                  You've really gotta stop wading into these arguments.

                                  You just get extremely upset.

                            • KamalaHarrisPOTUS [he/him]
                              ·
                              4 years ago

                              the Congo

                              fyi that is not the pref. nomenclature in english

                              theres the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), where US/Belgian backed death squads murdered Patrice Lumumba

                              and the Republic of Congo