[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
Well that is an advert for running things the way they run them isn’t it ? Immunity from market crashes isn’t a bad thing. If bankers get out of hand, they execute them rather than throwing money at them.
[/QUOTE]
Whoa, what? You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the Chinese government doesn’t and hasn’t tried to ‘fix’ it’s crash (a crash THEY basically made) by throwing huge amounts of money at it. Staggering amounts really. And they don’t execute bankers for corruption…hell, most of them have ties to the party, if they aren’t actually party officials themselves. No, they execute bankers (rarely) when they are in the wrong faction. Xi’s current corruption campaign isn’t about actual corruption, but about his faction battling another faction.
The recent one yeah, but it’s tiddlywinks isn’t it. Did they close any factories down near you because of it ? They closed a shitload of shops and factories in my town after 2008. No more Woolworths. What did we get in the building that used to house Woolworth’s ? A shop selling plastic Chinese crap. Yup, they did OK.
At least they’re executing someone.
You are quite right MrQwertyasd. I give the Western world 20 years at most before it is a carbon copy of Chinese state capitalism. Think capitalism with European values, it’s as good as anyone else’s wild guess.
No idea what, if anything you are trying to say here. The CCP has always thrown huge amounts of cash at problems…or bodies if that’s what it took. That’s why they went from one crisis to the next tossing cash (and/or bodies) at them like grains of sand. None of this is new.
Can you, instead of trying (and failing, IMHO) to be clever or whatever it is you are doing, just come right out and say whatever point you think you are making or trying to make? Do you think China executing people for being on the wrong side of a political wrangle is a good thing? Do you understand that the CCP is who caused their market crash, and that exactly zero party officials are going to be executed because of it, but that some might be executed because they aren’t in Xi’s faction but instead in another faction, or possibly to be made an example of to keep the people from blowing up? Do you understand that none of this demonstrates that China has some sort of new model capitalism, and that the real problem is because they DON’T have democracy, which means that the party isn’t beholden to anyone…which is why they can go from fuckup to fuckup, and that when THEY fuck up it dwarves anything we do? But that, because there isn’t a lot of outside investment allowed, that this means it has less effect outside of China, and that inside of China they can white wash the issues by controlling the media and message?
Basically, your guy Zizek is not the best source, doesn’t seem to grasp even the basics, and I’m unsure you do either. The West™ isn’t moving towards a Chinese (or Russian) model ‘authoritarian capitalism’, which pretty demonstrably sucks for both China and Russia…in fact, China is succeeding IN SPITE of the authoritarian part but because they have allowed some small amounts of the capitalism part in, not because of it. The CCP is holding back China…they have huge potential that’s being stifled by the party. Putin and his merry band is holding back Russia, which, regardless, is a basket case and will continue to be, since something like 70% of their GDP comes from oil and gas, thus is dependent on the price of those being high. Neither model is one that anyone would or is aspiring to.
Good, so, just to make sure: you will not debate this issue with me, even though you assert it is a slam dunk for you? Is there anything else you would be willing to debate me on? Say, exploitation without the labor theory of value? That’s not so hard, we coulf totally do it.
Well, I have. Most of them, anyway, the latest Hegelian tome was not for me. And I agree with the notion that you shouldn’t take second-hand criticism for gospel. Zizek’s books are more carefully argued than his Youtube clips…
And that said, I am not sure I buy his argument. Now, I fully agree with his claim that capitalist economies no longer produce liberal democracies, if they ever did. That is, if China becomes more capitalist in the near future, I don’t think therefore it will become more democratic. But I am not sure this willl be the rosd for western democracies–towards less democracy. Now, the way TTIP is getting passed in Europe suggests something like that, but on the other hand, there is still considerable resistance to it: so I think all things are still possible.
I say it’s tiddlywinks because nothing really bad has happened. Crises schmises, and they’re not going to take the world down with them. And as for it being the government to blame, they always say that. if it is so what, it still isn’t as bad as the crises made in London and New York which required a good dose of socialism to sort out. So, pfff, fuck up to fuck up that has made them the world’s largest economy. Can we have a bit more fuck up over here please ?
It dwarves anything we do ? Did you really say that ? The US and chums have produced the biggest fuck up ever, which is still ongoing.
Putin is hardly responsible for oil prices, that’s Saudi Arabia’s and America’s doing if anyone’s, flooding the market.
And, so what if it’s all fuck up, who says the world can’t live from fuck up to fuck up ?
Zizek’s contention wasn’t that everything would run smoothly, merely that capitalism will get by without democracy. You’re expanding his claim too far. Keep it simple, it might be a fucked up capitalism.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
I say it’s tiddlywinks because nothing really bad has happened.
[/QUOTE]
And you base this on…what? How do you define ‘really bad’ and what do you base your claim that nothing really happened?
Wow. Leaving aside that no one said they were going to take the world down, whatever that means to you (at this point the gods alone know what the hell you mean by basically anything), let’s take a step back. What do YOU think caused the Chinese stock market bubble? What was it? Why did it happen? Do you know, well, anything at all about it? Do you know what it’s ramifications are? Do you know what it’s connection to the nasty real estate bubble they just got out of before this new crisis hit?
With the worlds largest percentage of poor. With systemic issues making the whole thing a house of cards. With a quasi-capitalist system bound to what is basically an almost feudal system, with systemic corruption and a burgeoning environmental disaster. Yeah, sounds wonderful. Thing is, you don’t seem to know really anything about it at all. You don’t know enough to know why saying it’s the ‘world’s largest economy’ (which actually isn’t true, depending on what you mean by that) really says nothing at all.
Only the truly ignorant would want more of what the Chinese have or are dealing with. And that’s the final disconnect. Like your buddy Zizek, seemingly, you don’t seem to know enough about this subject to debate it, sadly. You THINK you know something, but you really don’t.
Worst in the DOWS history. The Chinese stock market crash lost literally trillions and has caused a ton of issues in China. But you don’t know about any of that, right? Seriously, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, or what the basic difference is between your linked article and what happened in China…and this is just one thing. We could talk about the environmental damage in China, the water shortages, the way they moved from a housing bubble to a stock market bubble, real wage issues, population unbalance, a population that has been on the edge of basic rebellion for over a decade and getting worse, and a ton more things that, yes, dwarf issues in the US or Europe or any other modern democratic state, but what would be the point when you know nothing, John Snow.
But, you see, when your entire economy revolves around a single vertical market, when that market is down you are fucked. So, no…Putin can hardly be blamed for the price of oil and gas (though he CAN be blamed for his Crimean/Ukrainian adventure that has caused additional hardships on an already floundering economy), but when you are a one trick pony you kind of are fucked when that trick doesn’t work anymore.
Don’t know…who said that? Is that a strawman you just trotted out or has someone said this? I thought we were talking about whether the world was going to the new model authoritarian capitalism since it’s so wonderful, not whether the world could or couldn’t live with…something.
Well, why didn’t you just say THAT? Of COURSE capitalism works without democracy…it works in several non-democratic countries, including China. It’s not working optimally, but it works…because it’s basically a better economic system than Zizek’s own favorite. It can be, basically, bolted on just about any sort of governmental system and do what it does best, be a little money making machine for the country it’s implemented in. It works BEST in countries with some sort of democracy, but it will still work in authoritarian hell holes such as China, at least as long as the state doesn’t fuck with it too much.
Nothing really bad happened with the Chinese stock market fail because the world economy hasn’t collapsed. Did you notice the world shaking ? I didn’t. What did it do to you ? Did you lose your job ? Did the shops start closing in your town ? No. Mainly it’s a problem for a minority of Chinese people.
What do I think caused it ? I’m not even going to look it up because it’s not relevant to Zizek’s argument - unless you can prove otherwise.
China has the world’s largest percentage of poor ? Percentage of what ? And who says ? And so what ? Why does that make a difference to whether capitalism and democracy are divorcing ?
Whether it’s the world’s largest anything or not makes no difference either.
You mean like industrialisation, record breaking growth, massive numbers lifted out of poverty ?
Awful, keep those fuck up things away from me.
“But, you see, when your entire economy revolves around a single vertical market, when that market is down you are fucked. So, no…Putin can hardly be blamed for the price of oil and gas (though he CAN be blamed for his Crimean/Ukrainian adventure that has caused additional hardships on an already floundering economy), but when you are a one trick pony you kind of are fucked when that trick doesn’t work anymore.”
Irrelevant again. you think that capitalism cannot become less linked to democracy in countries that have multiple resources, for some reason ? This is just mindless patriotic chest beating about a war, and nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You. If your description of Chinese fuck up isn’t a refutation of Zizek’s idea then again it’s an irrelevance.
Admission that capitalism can work without democracy is a start. You’ll have to ask Zizek what his favourite is because I don’t know. I think he’d agree that it works better for producing goods, but that’s not the contention. The contention is that your democracy is not safe merely because it is capitalist, and is likely to be eroding in the future.
*The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2015 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2014.*
[ul]
[li]In 2014, the official poverty rate was 14.8 percent. There were 46.7 million people in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2013 estimates.[/li][li]For the fourth consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimates.[/li][li]The 2014 poverty rate was 2.3 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.[/li][li]The 2014 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from the 2013 rates. Poverty rates went up between 2013 and 2014 for only two groups: people with a bachelor’s degree or more, and married-couple families.[/li][li]For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty increased for unrelated individuals, people aged 18 to 64 with a disability, people with at least a bachelor’s degree and married-couple families.[/li][li]The poverty rate in 2014 for children under age 18 was 21.1 percent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.5 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 10.0 percent. None of these poverty rates were statistically different from the 2013 estimates[/li][/ul]
So while China is lifting millions out of poverty, the USA is doing nothing or going backwards, and it’s similar for the UK and many European countries.
…it’s similar for the UK and many European countries. And that’s why there are distinct threats to democracy because economic failure leads to the sort of polarisation you have in Greece and Ukraine. The US adventure in Ukraine is, of course, fronted by nazis, and your government, with some exceptions, has had little qualm in supporting them. It never does bother itself with things like that. If Europe lurches towards authoritarian capitalism the USA won’t be bothered one bit, it will rather see it as good for business. In general.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
So while China is lifting millions out of poverty, the USA is doing nothing or going backwards, and it’s similar for the UK and many European countries.
Today 01:42 AM
[/QUOTE]
This is the equivalent of saying that while the fastest man in the world is only improving a few seconds or maybe losing a few seconds off his time, XT, who ran a 89 minute 100 yard dash a year ago is now able to do it in only 60 minutes after giving up the beer and doing some training. Look at how much better I am, cutting 10’s of minutes off my time, while the fastest guy is only able to shave a few seconds or even getting slower…XT for the win!!!
Predictable. But they’ve been improving while the West has been going backwards.
You point out China’s environmental problems, as if the West has nothing to do with that. Externalised cost. Do you want your cheap goodies or not ?
You’ve been factually incorrect in claiming “there isn’t a lot of outside investment allowed.” Actually it has the highest in the world.
You claim that China is somehow mired in poverty due to the system, actually it’s broken the record on poverty alleviation - authoritarianism and all. the next 5 year plan is to eliminate poverty by 2020 - sounds unfeasible but at least they have that as a goal.
You seem to think that Zizek is cheerleading the loss of democracy despite it being his pessimistic outlook.
You’ve completely avoided the fact that the 2008 financial disaster took place in democracies, and dwarfs the Chinese bubble popping.
But you’ve dodged the actual question with a supposedly virtuoso display of knowledge of all things economic, and haven’t given any reason why the future shouldn’t be authoritarian rather than one of ever expanding, capitalist driven democracy.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
Predictable. But they’ve been improving while the West has been going backwards.
[/QUOTE]
As is your non-response. Oh well, not like anyone is taking this ‘debate’ seriously.
Because we are forcing the Chinese to make all those goods, right? And forcing them to adulterate their environment to do so? Yeah, right.
No, I didn’t claim that. That’s YOUR strawman. I said that China has a large percentage of the worlds poor. They also have a large percentage of the total population. What I DID claim is that China’s system holds the Chinese back, that it’s that authoritarian/totalitarian system you seem to be all gooey about that is making China less prosperous across the board than they could be. The CCP has over and over again proved they are a bunch of inept fools who tend to drive their economy from one extreme to the next.
And you base this on WHAT?? You don’t seem to understand the difference between when I build a manufacturing plant in your country and when I invest my money in one of your countries companies. This statement of yours is so far off the scale of ridiculousness it’s hardly worth addressing, but even a cursory Google search reveals that China is only just starting to open up their companies to very limited foreign investment…which is why when their stock market melted down it didn’t affect YOU, which seems to be the only metric you understand. See, foreigners aren’t allowed (or weren’t until recently) allowed to directly invest in Chinese companies. Hell, even when Alibaba went IPO, a lot of inverters didn’t seem to realize they weren’t investing directly in Alibaba but instead investing in a secondary holding company that wasn’t Chinese.
From the link:
Here’s the bit about Alibaba:
So, let’s see a fucking cite from you on this one thing. You have yet to provide anything to back up your statements which are often silly and cryptic, but let’s see a cite showing that investment in China and Chinese companies is ‘Actually it has the highest in the world’.
Horseshit. I’ve directly answered this question repeatedly. Simply put, the examples of authoritarian capitalism shown in China or Russia, for anyone who has even a basic understanding of the issues pretty clearly shows that it’s the authoritarian aspects that are holding them back, not pushing them forward.
You should give it a try yourself…perhaps try and cut and paste what you think are the relevant parts instead of drive by links and Just Watch This!! YouTube gurgle, along with sprays of horseshit and pony dust in loo of debate.
there is not anyone serious in political economy who thinks there is the mechanical relationship, only that the economic growth that is assisted by the capitalism (the lower c kind) has a tendency to see the political forces that ask for more of the political space, and is less dependent on the central authoritarians for their living, so more ready to challenge that. It is certainly the case even in the china that there is more claims and agitation for things that an urbanized more wealthy population cares about like the pollution. the political theory is this tends to push towards some kind of democratization. That is the theory.
True, it seems like a performance to amuse himself and get reactions, but he keeps to the high tone that they are so proud of having achieved in gd.
specifically it is the problems of the poor rule of law and the hyper-dominance of the connections over rules, things that authoritarianism tends to promote, that undermine.
it is more work for his posting of the deliberately provocative message to generate the maximum of a scene…
for his statement
of course this is a silly - the short term variations around the high base contre the variations off of the low base are not comparable.
Try not to create too obvious straw men. I asserted nothing about what this issue is for me in ease or in diffcculty, which is obvious to anyone who read this. This game of yours is boring as are the rhetoric dressed in pompous language and faux philosophizing.
I see no point in a ‘debate’ given the other thread that touched on the exact same subject and the obvious lack of any impact of that discussion. And that the subject is like debating the Phlogiston theory… a waste of time.
You can start such a thread about the economic concept or the political concept of exploitation.
The Chinese stock market crash lost literally trillions and has caused a ton of issues in China. But you don’t know about any of that, right? Seriously, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, or what the basic difference is between your linked article and what happened in China…and this is just one thing. We could talk about the environmental damage in China, the water shortages, the way they moved from a housing bubble to a stock market bubble, real wage issues, population unbalance, a population that has been on the edge of basic rebellion for over a decade and getting worse, and a ton more things that, yes, dwarf issues in the US or Europe or any other modern democratic state, but what would be the point when you know nothing, John Snow.