If you're Luo Wen, you're in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.
It's not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the "property of workers".
I'm saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn't feasible at the moment.
I'm combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it's a capitalist state with social elements.
A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn't do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.
Textbook communism is an economy that is 100% worker-owned, with everyone's needs directly met without the intervention of money. The rest is not that, by literal definition. Let's not play into the hands of people who want to call that communism and ultra-left to exploit in their own needs.
China does have some strong policies, but it doesn't make it communist by any definition. Also, high home ownership rate is mostly a cultural phenomenon, with housing still seen as "best investment" despite the fact there are entire ghost towns full of houses that never ever filled.
I'm well aware that US pressures China militarily, and that China has a much more peaceful approach. However, Chinese ships regularly bully other countries in the South China Sea against international maritime laws.
The infrastructure China builds is not just a gift - but an investment on which China expects a return. I'm not convinced China is actively pursuing debt trap diplomacy, but it certainly uses economic power to pressure other countries into various concessions.
The economy of China is not characterized by the common/social ownership of the means of production, which means it is not socialist. No amount of five-year plans can change that.
China does spark international conflicts and does bully its neighbors, but it is true that the country doesn't cosplay world police and doesn't participate much in military operations outside the country, which is a big plus.
As per the bar, it shouldn't fall lower just because some country got even more evil. We can compare the evils, but the evil will be there.
With all that said, I do not say "China bad". But claiming "China good" would also not be correct.
As a fellow communist, I was always bewildered by this urge of many tankies to prove by all means, against any evidence, that China is socialist and ultimately good.
It's neither. China turned to markets, privatized many industries, and really did commit atrocities on Tiannamen square and in Xinjiang.
Doesn't mean socialism as a system is dysfunctional. United States are directly responsible for insane atrocities all over the world, and we don't need to deny that either.
We need to learn from the experience and strive for it not to happen again. Not close our eyes, scream "blah-blah-blah" and pretend it never happened.
China and the Soviet Union were responsible for acts of genocide, mass murdering/starving people, etc.
Doesn't mean this didn't happen in a capitalist world, and doesn't mean we should close our eyes on that to defend the good look of the system. If anything, this does the opposite. Problems need to be solved, not ignored.
I think that behind those "oh, it's 30 years old" people miss one thing:
350nm chips are perfectly alright for many things. Simple controllers, chips inside various appliances, even some of the simpler military tech can absolutely rely on those chips.
Not subbed, but thanking the author and hoping all those posts go there, outside of my view.
AI itself is a power that can be used for good, yet people focus on the wrong enemy: we should target corporate cancer that permeates and warps not only AI, but other technologies as well.
Fuck ChatGPT, Bard, Gemini, all that shit - Embrace HuggingFace and things it offers, and pay visit to the AI Horde - thanks our beloved db0 for the reference!
Fuck companies that try to bake in their proprietary models into their operating systems, search engines, you name it, to lead people to adopt the wrong kind of technology - Embrace GPT4All and make it your choice to use open-source, controlled models on your machine.
By sharing general fears of AI as a technology, you play straight into the hands of the likes of Altman, who then turns those fears into reasons to make it a walled garden and shove even more of that shit down your throats.
We should not aim to fuck AI, we should aim for AI not being used as a weapon against us or pushed to where we don't want it to be. Strive for control over the technology that will undoubtedly change our futures.
Covid itself is known to fuck with the body in a wide range of ways, creating severe long-term consequences for many. We know it's true, and we know covid has way more lasting side effects than vaccines do.
What is the guarantee it doesn't cause something very bad to you down the road? Maybe even something we don't know yet? COVID-19 is not perfectly studied, and what is studied tells us it absolutely can cause problems down the road.
It's also not safer by the virtue of being "natural" - viruses are essentially pieces of randomly changing encapsulated code injected into our bodies and reprogramming our cells. It could be anything, and I mean that.
Pfizer vaccine (or pretty much any approved covid vaccine for that matter) has little known side effects and is not expected to cause much more going forward.
From all the data we have now, vaccinating is a better pick both right now AND against future consequences.
Also, due to the fast pace of viral mutations, the vaccine will probably be completely useless in the 30 years you suggest.
Absolutely!
Inflation has to be lower, that's for sure.
I'd even argue that the need for inflation is more of a feature of a capitalist economy.
Having to force spending/investment is only important as long as the very economy is built around overconsumption and private investment.
We can absolutely live with a more or less stable currency if we focus on sustainability and put the people first. Money should return to be the means to just get what we need, and we should stop building the economy around creating artificial demand.
Yes, but that was caused by other factors, while deflationary policy directly leads to them as it punishes spending, but rewards accumulation. As a result, everyone sits on a pile of cash, and they either don't spend it, like, ever, grinding economy to a halt, or start buying, strongly depreciating the currency and forming a death spiral.