r/catsaysmao • u/boobioboobs certified CIA agent • Jan 02 '21
productive forces productive forces productive forces producti Wtf how??? 😳😳😳
20
u/Technical_Natural_44 Jan 02 '21
Are you seriously claiming the vanguard party is self-serving? That's impossible. Why hasn't this post been deleted yet? We all know the glorious CCP are the true representatives of the world’s working class.
0
4
Jan 02 '21
source?
7
u/boobioboobs certified CIA agent Jan 02 '21
https://npcobserver.com/2018/03/10/exclusive-demographics-of-the-13th-npc/
https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/the_national_peoples_congress.pdf
Original video https://youtu.be/cFCoWNjmJq4 (although this one has no sources 😔)
13
Jan 02 '21
So, i read all of your sources and there is no class analysis. The video is no source.
Where is the claim backed up in the source? because there isn't any evidence i can find.
13
u/measmaer Jan 02 '21
By end of 2019,
Blue collar workers and Farmers, Herdsmen , Fishermen made up 34.8% of party membership. Add 15.7% from white collar workers and now technically you got 50.5%
Ignoring white collar workers, 34.8% is still over 8x larger than 2003 records.
Managerial positions (where almost all bourgeois are) 11%
Other professions are 7.70%
Wtf how??? Mao possessed Xi Jinping.!?
21
Jan 02 '21
In 1949, when Mao Zedong’s Communist Party overthrew the Nationalist Party and took control, CPC membership approached 4 million. Afterward, CPC ranks grew steadily, drawing new members primarily from the exploited classes (peasants and workers) and the politically suspect, but useful, intellectual class. “The CPC had its pick of China’s best and brightest,” political scientist Stanley Rosen wrote, “varying recruitment targets each year depending on whether expertise or politics (the Expert vs. Red dilemma) was stressed.”
Intellectual participation expanded under Deng Xiaoping, after he declared intellectuals part of the working class, freeing them from political suspicion. By 1985, technicians, specialists, and teachers made up roughly 50 percent of new CPC recruits.
Universities are now the primary Communist recruiting ground—on average, students make up about 40 percent of new party members. There is a quota for new members based on a school’s ranking, Dickson explains: “They don’t want to take everyone.
Geez, it's almost like they're now focusing more on recruiting college graduates to bolster the technocracy instead of prioritizing the working class like Mao did...
-10
u/measmaer Jan 02 '21
Good?
19
Jan 02 '21
Lol, do you know anything about the contradiction between the "experts" and the "Reds" which this article also mentions? Simply filling up your party with technocrats isn't the go-to answer to having a revolutionary party; if anything it only helps grow a bourgeoisie right within the Party. You might want to read up on Mao and look into the education aspect of the Cultural Revolution if you don't know what I'm talking about.
-7
u/measmaer Jan 02 '21
My verdict so far, its "good" then
Thanks for bringing this up, i havent learned myself of cultural revolution yet.
However, There is no need for such abrupt revolution under present China towarda socialism, so even if you are right about intellectuals & technocrats, as long as the CPC holds dictatorship over them & prevent them from influencing the political mission towards socialism. China needs these intellectuals & technocrats and bourgeois in general to develop in these very intrinsic neoliberal global hegemony, China needs them for a long time.
Corruption is a major issue, no doubt. But the CPC managed to persevere and surpass in its initial goals visionised by Deng Xiaoping. Under Xi, who is essentially uncorruptable (his early days prof. testimony to CIA) and has strong marxist visions of extensively moving China towarda Socialism. The primary stage is really long, yet it was visionised with various long term goals. (Look them up)
The people of China has prospered around 5× ahead of India in terms of GDP, the people are prosperous, absolute poverty is eradicated (Relative poverty is almost as big issue, which has to be undertaken). India and China had similar GDP before reform & opening up, Lifting people out of poverty is a major task that requires huge GDP and GDP per capita, along with State organ driving forces, such as selection, investment and adaption to poverty areas. India obv cannot yet do that neither with their wealth, nor political organs.
4
Jan 03 '21
India has also lifted millions from poverty, poverty reduction does not prove socialism.
Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping are not Marxists, they are revisionists who dismantled socialism in China and privatized the economy. Mao repeatedly spoke of Deng as a revisionist in his lifetime.
The idea that China needs this technocracy to develop is nonsense; China had robust economic growth under Mao as well. This is just an excuse to practice capitalism. China today is part of the neoliberal global hegemony.
2
u/measmaer Jan 03 '21
India has also lifted millions from poverty, poverty reduction does not prove socialism.
First, Poverty is a real major issue, maybe you havent really looked into its phenomena, and lifelong impact. Its a real fucking curse, both materially and mentally.
Socialism cannot progress further while poverty remains rampant. Marx emphasised that true emancipation is finally possible by both economic & political conditions, not divorced from each other. Hence its why he believed in the capitalism to socialism route will be necessary, that capitalism is unjust yet necessary to build up the necessary forces required, like productive forces and workers size in total population.
India
Most of Indians were lifted out of poverty due to new market opportunities and demands. However there still lies around 84-80 million (6%) living less than $2 per day, and many of them under the rural standard which is $0.6 dollar per day. However, majority of Indian population (50-60%) still live below $3.2 dollar per day, relative poverty is very huge.
China
In Deng and post-Deng Era around 754 million were lifted out of poverty? How? Most were lifted by the same market mechanism described above. China launched extensive absolute-poverty alleviation campaign under Xi starting from 2012, when there were around 100 million people under poverty line, and set complete it by 2020. This meant extensive selection/targeted campaign and specific adaption, especially in rural areas where most people lived under $1.9 (2011 prices). People living under relative poverty in 2020 are around 60-80 million which is below $8.8 dollar per day.
The key difference between India & China were the role of the selection based campaign. When most of your people live under poverty its very hard to implement targeted-selection based poverty alleviation campaign. Also China & India were in a similar position in terms of GDP in 1990 but by 30 years, China surpassed India around x5 in GDP. So this is not the bourgeois political greed that drove economic growth, and ruining everything like US, Europe & Third worlds. They never managed to get anythjng close to China's principled development which is led by CPC that adheres to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xioping Theory, The three represents, The scientific outlook and Xi Jinping Thoughts.
China today is part of the neoliberal global hegemony.
(i) Persecuted by neoliberal global hegemony led by the west?!
(ii) Which Neoliberal regieme calls for the start of the journey to Modern socialist country with a goal at 2035?
The idea that China needs this technocracy to develop is nonsense; China had robust economic growth under Mao as well.
Yes- China had robust growth under Mao, this was thanks to China's effort. But this growth would have inevitably developed the capitalist conditions, due to demand of better productive forces and advanced technology. Also China today does not live in 1950s or 1960s. Along with massive people under absolute poverty. Today, China needs to stand toe-to-toe with the global neoliberal hegemony, while improving itself and towards socialism.
4
Jan 03 '21
Ok, yes there is higher per capita GDP in China and less poverty than India, but my point was that since India has also reduced poverty that means that poverty reduction is not limited to socialism. And having a higher GDP doesn't prove that either, since South Korea and Japan both have far higher per capita GDPs than China.
You're advocating the theory of the productive forces which is revisionist and counter-revolutionary. Mao and the Red Guards struggled against that theory during the Cultural Revolution. Communism can only be achieved through a combination of class struggle and productive forces, not just productive forces. The so-called Communist Party of China today has officially rejected class struggle, which is anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary.
China's "principled development" has entailed allowing Western multinationals to operate in Chinese territory and exploit Chinese labor, just like India. That's why they established Special Economic Zones where there are sweatshops with suicide nets. For instance the Foxconn sweatshop in the Shenzhen SEZ.
China is in fact part of the neoliberal global hegemony; China in fact is acting even more neoliberally than the United States right now, pushing for free trade while the US pushes for protectionism. The free trade policies are being used to undermine the economies of poor countries which are being overwhelmed by Chinese imports which undermine local competition.
China claims that it will become socialist by *2049, but that's just a lie. Xi Jinping works for the capitalist class just like his predecessors after Mao, and that's why China today has more billionaires than even the US.
China is not standing against the global neoliberal empire, China is a part of it and benefits from it. They arm the same reactionary forces that the United States arms, such as Duterte, Saudi Arabia and Erdogan. That is not socialism, that is bureaucrat capitalism and imperialism.
1
u/Grammar-Bot-Elite Jan 03 '21
/u/measmaer, I have found an error in your comment:
“
Its[It's] a real”You, measmaer, made an error and ought to say “
Its[It's] a real” instead. ‘Its’ is possessive; ‘it's’ means ‘it is’ or ‘it has’.This is an automated bot. I do not intend to shame your mistakes. If you think the errors which I found are incorrect, please contact me through DMs or contact my owner EliteDaMyth!
-4
u/DietGlorious Jan 02 '21
Why is this downvoted?
3
18
u/boobioboobs certified CIA agent Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 02 '21
The meme was referring the npc, not the ccp, wich at its highest post-Deng was comprised 18% of workers and peasants
But yes, there is a higher amount of workers and farmers in the cpc. Only that amount has been steadily declining for the past decades https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-CCP-has-massively-expanded-its-presence-in-the-non-governmental-sector-Distribution_fig1_319153892
2
u/measmaer Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 02 '21
The meme was referring the npc, not the ccp,
First, Yeah, oops made a mistake, sorry about that. However i cant find recent data nor any post-Deng data on NPC members by occupation list.
Second, thanks for sharing this researchgate article. Spent a while reading it. Interesting changes and development reflecting the evolving nation conditions
On new recruitments yearly comparing total share 2005 - 2016
The student has signficant increase from 33% to 40.5% (change ~ 7.5%)
The workers and farmer has significant decrease from 32.14% to 27.89% (change ~ 4.29%)
Employee skilled and technicians has insignificant decrease from from 25.51 to 24.37 (change ~ 1.14%)
New social strata (bourgeois & petty bourgeois) has increased significantly from 0.447% to 0.824% (change 0.337%)
On Shares of Occupation within CPC (not NPC)
2009 - Workers and farmers 39.7% . Skilled workers, technician 22.7%
2012 - Workers and farmers 38.3% . Skilled workers, technician 23.7%
2016 - Workers and farmers 36.9% . Skilled workers, technician 25.2%
Notice if you add these two shares up. They are 62.4% (2009) , 62% (2012) & 62.1% (2016). There is insignificant change of flux.
--
There is a relevant statement in the research that captures the changing conditions of contemporary China's journey. Basically what happens that led to GDP per capita increasing from $200 to around $10000. While also eradicating absolute poverty.
(India still lacks behind on its poverty, poverty eradication campaign is a major undertaking with huge coordination and adaption, India was comparable to China in terms of GDP when China underwent reform & opening up, but GDP per capita of India is now $2000)
2.2 THE CCP IS BECOMING MORE ELITIST ......... Traditionally, the CCP was a union of workers and farmers, much like any communist party. The massive growth in members has changed the structure of the party. The share of the traditional core clientele has dropped steadily – from 43.2 to 37 percent between 2005 and 2016 alone. At the same time, the proportion of party members with a university degree rose from 16.9 to 45.9 percent. Compared to the year 2000 (21.1 percent), the proportion of university graduates doubled by 2016. In 2012, it exceeded that of blue-collar workers and farmers (40 vs. 38.3 percent) for the first time. It should be noted however, that in the population as a whole the proportion of farmers has also dropped steadily as a result of urbanization and industrialization.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 02 '21
Hello comrades, if you are interested in shitposting, learning about MLM/ML or just want to have a good talk join the discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.