this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4294 readers
20 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
China keeping rent low and housing affordable is the reason why the West thinks China's economy is collapsing. They can't comprehend a world where the economy doesn't prioritize the rich. (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It is not just "overproduction". It is "overproduction" with a "stagnating economy" during an "economic downturn". Only China is capable of collapsing in multiple contradictory ways at the same time like this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

This is also why they think One Child was a failure: a Western economy that size would need 1.8 billion talking heads by 2040 just to keep the spin going. CNBC headquarters alone would be the size of Manitoba and on the verge of gravitational collapse due to the flesh packed within.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

US logic: Population line can't go down if you keep stealing talent from all over the world, and exploiting immigrants with promises of a "better life"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One child policy was also a requirement put forth by IMF for providing loans to China.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a source for this? If true, that's quite a plot twist

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I don't. I thought I had read the somewhere but when I tried to look it up I couldn't find anything. I'll delete the comment since it could be total bs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Population decrease is only a problem in a world where profits must go up forever. China is investing heavily in industrial robotics and is not ideologically constrained from socializing the output of those robots like the US is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And you can see how the fascist US handles a dwindling population: here, here, and here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"We have a shortage of workers willing to work for unlivable wages right now at this moment. The solution to this is to have more babies."

Yes, this is sensible and logical, and is indicative of a good understanding of worker productivity levels for the infant and pregnant demographics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

No actually that's actually part of the stimulus, it will create lots of jobs at the factory that makes smaller-than-usual handles for industrial equipment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

shit i'd rather have antinatalists around

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Reminds me of this, as anti-communist rhetoric often does:

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.” ― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

parenti quote

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The quote

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

-- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.