So, instead of rehashing the same old talking points for the upteenth time, would anyone be interested in discussing China’s political project in a broader and more mature way? Like for example:
Who do you think should’ve come to power following the fall of the Qing, through to the civil war (if not the CPC)?
Do you agree with the direction of Deng’s economic reforms and opening up to foreign investment? If not, should he have stayed closer to Mao’s policies, or should he have gone further towards liberalization, or something else?
What aspects or projects of the CPC have been good or successful?
What aspects or projects of the CPC have been flawed or unsuccessful?
What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of the CPC?
Ngl I don’t have high hopes for this comment but I’m tryin’ over here.
i am once again relieved that libs are too lazy and ignorant to investigate anything beyond the ccp bad that msm tells them, and that chinese libs hate themselves too much to think themselves worthy of educating their lib betters about cpc atrocity conspiracy theories.
though tbf at least shit like tiananmen is falsifiable, i think i’d have an aneurysm if white people on the internet started telling me that mao never left his palanquin and ate the PLA’s entire stock of chicken over the course of the long march. like big spoon stalin but in earnest
I have a friend from China who’s a lib and he’s probably one of the most racist people I know (specifically against Chinese people). Just the other day he said Chinese people have never invented anything and that good inventions can only come from the US or Europe. He also wants to look, sound, and dress like an Ivy-league country club dude. Dude regularly reminds me of a Chinese Uncle Ruckus. Is that kind of self-hating common or is it mostly because he’s from a rich family?
it’s an interesting exercise to map racism and self hatred against class interests, particularly in the context of america and china’s antagonistic relationship. mao’s perenially applicable class analysis has changed somewhat over the years, but the gist remains the same: the big bourgeois landlords/compradors have morphed into corrupt officials and bureaucratic monopolists, the middle bourgeois are now real estate/insurance/finance goons or factory owners and right wing petty bourgeois have added techbros to their ranks.
in my experience, the big bourgeois are largely past this level of ingroup status signalling, they’re too busy hustling their stolen capital out of china and race for them only matters insofar as who lets them stash their cash where. meanwhile, the middle bourgeois and the upper rungs of the petty bourgeois are likely most prone to this sort of behavior. they don’t have enough cash or clout to feel like they’re above the party, but they have a big enough amount of ill gotten goods/chips on their shoulder to make them feel like they might be arbitrarily targeted (or maybe they feel like they deserve more but for the intervention of the party), and so they channel that resentment into hating other chinese people.
less rich people also ape western affectations for a wider variety of reasons, but i will say that western media penetration into china is very deep and pervasive and that the 90s/chimerica years resulted in at least a generation of thought leaders and public intellectuals that are extremely ideologically compromised and it is unclear how fast their influence might be dissipated, if ever.
Yeah it’s like, typing this out really drew my attention to how much conversations about China are dominated by random noise that’s largely insignificant or bullshit. It’s always this 24 hour news coverage level of analysis, with no actual study of history or major trends and themes. Hell I realized myself the other day that there were two leaders between Deng and Xi who I couldn’t name and know basically nothing about.
I think that most people fall into certain ideological traps that allow them to simplify narratives to the point of never really feeling the need to study anything, in part because the world is just so big that it’s hard to actually be informed about things. You never have to decide how you feel about specific events in China’s history if you just scream “CHINA BAD” every time it comes up, and that’s a whole lot of history you never have to bother learning now.
Hell I realized myself the other day that there were two leaders between Deng and Xi who I couldn’t name and know basically nothing about.
Oh well that’s easy, before Xi Jinping there was Hu Jintao, who was a kind of moderate technocratic kind of guy. Always about plans and numbers. And before Jintao there was a magic toad wizard who wore George Romero glasses and would yell at journalists when they asked him stupid shit
Omg that’s like straight out of a movie. I’ve seen that “too young, too simple, sometimes naive” quote before but I had no idea that’s where it’s from. I love it.
I agree, though I think it may have gone too far. Allowing billionaires is a dangerous gambit due to the possibility of them gaining political influence, and allowing landlords was a mistake. However, these reforms have helped lift 800 million people out of extreme poverty and were necessary at the time.
Land reform, the Barefoot Doctors program, Deng’s reforms, and the Belt and Road initiative have all been very successful and increased the standards of living for an enormous number of people. The CPC has had a focus on improving the lives of their poorest people, and in that regard they’ve done a very good job.
The Great Leap Forward, the Sino-Soviet split, the Cultural Revolution, LGBT rights, and past China’s foreign policy such as supporting Pol Pot/the Khemer Rouge and invading Vietnam. A lot of the blame for the Sino-Soviet split lies with Khrushchev, but I think there’s enough blame to go around. I think the Soviet policy of “peaceful co-existence” was more correct, and more in line with what China ended up doing anyway (libs will roast me for that, I’m sure). Some positive things did happen during the Cultural Revolution (such as the above-mentioned Barefoot Doctors program), but generally it was a chaotic mess and I’m not sure it accomplished very much. The GLF had a lot of factors, including the Sino-Soviet split, but there’s plenty of blame to ascribe to Mao (the sparrows did not, in fact, deserve it)
Kind of trite but one take-away is “seek truth from facts.” When Mao was successful, it was because of his experience living among rural Chinese, and looking at what they needed. Where he was unsuccessful was when he got too caught up in theory, sometimes assuming something would work without paying close enough attention to whether it actually was. I consider the overall political project successful due to the improvements made in people’s lives, but how the devil’s bargain with the capitalists will ultimately play out remains to be seen.
So, instead of rehashing the same old talking points for the upteenth time, would anyone be interested in discussing China’s political project in a broader and more mature way? Like for example:
Who do you think should’ve come to power following the fall of the Qing, through to the civil war (if not the CPC)?
Do you agree with the direction of Deng’s economic reforms and opening up to foreign investment? If not, should he have stayed closer to Mao’s policies, or should he have gone further towards liberalization, or something else?
What aspects or projects of the CPC have been good or successful?
What aspects or projects of the CPC have been flawed or unsuccessful?
What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of the CPC?
Ngl I don’t have high hopes for this comment but I’m tryin’ over here.
i am once again relieved that
libs are too lazy and ignorant to investigate anything beyond the ccp bad that msm tells them, and that chinese libs hate themselves too much to think themselves worthy of educating their 
lib betters about cpc atrocity conspiracy theories.
though tbf at least shit like tiananmen is falsifiable, i think i’d have an aneurysm if white people on the internet started telling me that mao never left his palanquin and ate the PLA’s entire stock of chicken over the course of the long march. like big spoon stalin but in earnest
I have a friend from China who’s a lib and he’s probably one of the most racist people I know (specifically against Chinese people). Just the other day he said Chinese people have never invented anything and that good inventions can only come from the US or Europe. He also wants to look, sound, and dress like an Ivy-league country club dude. Dude regularly reminds me of a Chinese Uncle Ruckus. Is that kind of self-hating common or is it mostly because he’s from a rich family?
⬆️
Uncle Roger
in parlance, he’s called an uncle chan.
it’s an interesting exercise to map racism and self hatred against class interests, particularly in the context of america and china’s antagonistic relationship. mao’s perenially applicable class analysis has changed somewhat over the years, but the gist remains the same: the big bourgeois landlords/compradors have morphed into corrupt officials and bureaucratic monopolists, the middle bourgeois are now real estate/insurance/finance goons or factory owners and right wing petty bourgeois have added techbros to their ranks.
in my experience, the big bourgeois are largely past this level of ingroup status signalling, they’re too busy hustling their stolen capital out of china and race for them only matters insofar as who lets them stash their cash where. meanwhile, the middle bourgeois and the upper rungs of the petty bourgeois are likely most prone to this sort of behavior. they don’t have enough cash or clout to feel like they’re above the party, but they have a big enough amount of ill gotten goods/chips on their shoulder to make them feel like they might be arbitrarily targeted (or maybe they feel like they deserve more but for the intervention of the party), and so they channel that resentment into hating other chinese people.
less rich people also ape western affectations for a wider variety of reasons, but i will say that western media penetration into china is very deep and pervasive and that the 90s/chimerica years resulted in at least a generation of thought leaders and public intellectuals that are extremely ideologically compromised and it is unclear how fast their influence might be dissipated, if ever.
Yeah it’s like, typing this out really drew my attention to how much conversations about China are dominated by random noise that’s largely insignificant or bullshit. It’s always this 24 hour news coverage level of analysis, with no actual study of history or major trends and themes. Hell I realized myself the other day that there were two leaders between Deng and Xi who I couldn’t name and know basically nothing about.
I think that most people fall into certain ideological traps that allow them to simplify narratives to the point of never really feeling the need to study anything, in part because the world is just so big that it’s hard to actually be informed about things. You never have to decide how you feel about specific events in China’s history if you just scream “CHINA BAD” every time it comes up, and that’s a whole lot of history you never have to bother learning now.
Oh well that’s easy, before Xi Jinping there was Hu Jintao, who was a kind of moderate technocratic kind of guy. Always about plans and numbers. And before Jintao there was a magic toad wizard who wore George Romero glasses and would yell at journalists when they asked him stupid shit
If you are lying to me about this I do not want to know the truth
i’m only mildly exaggerating
I don’t think we even have emotes for those guys, and we have a million emotes!
My impression was both of then were fairly boring technocrats but I’m interested to learn more about this magic toad wizard.
This is the only thing I know about Jiang Zemin and I think I might be okay with that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGPJzusNPA
Omg that’s like straight out of a movie. I’ve seen that “too young, too simple, sometimes naive” quote before but I had no idea that’s where it’s from. I love it.
I'll offer my own answers as well.
The CPC
I agree, though I think it may have gone too far. Allowing billionaires is a dangerous gambit due to the possibility of them gaining political influence, and allowing landlords was a mistake. However, these reforms have helped lift 800 million people out of extreme poverty and were necessary at the time.
Land reform, the Barefoot Doctors program, Deng’s reforms, and the Belt and Road initiative have all been very successful and increased the standards of living for an enormous number of people. The CPC has had a focus on improving the lives of their poorest people, and in that regard they’ve done a very good job.
The Great Leap Forward, the Sino-Soviet split, the Cultural Revolution, LGBT rights, and past China’s foreign policy such as supporting Pol Pot/the Khemer Rouge and invading Vietnam. A lot of the blame for the Sino-Soviet split lies with Khrushchev, but I think there’s enough blame to go around. I think the Soviet policy of “peaceful co-existence” was more correct, and more in line with what China ended up doing anyway (libs will roast me for that, I’m sure). Some positive things did happen during the Cultural Revolution (such as the above-mentioned Barefoot Doctors program), but generally it was a chaotic mess and I’m not sure it accomplished very much. The GLF had a lot of factors, including the Sino-Soviet split, but there’s plenty of blame to ascribe to Mao (the sparrows did not, in fact, deserve it)
Kind of trite but one take-away is “seek truth from facts.” When Mao was successful, it was because of his experience living among rural Chinese, and looking at what they needed. Where he was unsuccessful was when he got too caught up in theory, sometimes assuming something would work without paying close enough attention to whether it actually was. I consider the overall political project successful due to the improvements made in people’s lives, but how the devil’s bargain with the capitalists will ultimately play out remains to be seen.