A top economist has joined the growing list of China’s elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.

CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China’s cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a “body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership.”

According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China’s sluggish economy and criticizing Xi’s leadership in a private group on WeChat.

  • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    03 months ago

    I can’t parse what you’re trying to say here. I suspect we’re talking past each other because you’re arguing from a purely academic point of view, rather than taking actual self-proclaimed communist states into account. Do you believe China is communist? How about the USSR?

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

      I’m arguing for academic analysis of self-proclaimed Marxists.

      China is Socialist. It practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over a Market Economy. The CPC is Communist by ideology, but of course they haven’t achieved Communism yet, nor do they claim to. They tried to directly implement Communism under Mao and later under the Gang of Four, which ended up being a critical error in judgement as the Means of Production were not at all developed enough for it, hence the Gang of Four claiming it was “better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism.”

      The USSR was Socialist. They never achieved Communism, largely due to refusing to interlock with the rest of the world economy. While they managed to provide many critical necessities like healthcare, education, and so forth for free, shutting out the global market led to consumer jealousy over consumer commodities from the west, which led to democratically instating liberal market reforms, which worked against the centralized nature of the economy, leading to its dissolution.

      • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -13 months ago

        So your stance is essentially “real communism has never been tried”? Technically correct, I suppose, but what really matters is the actions of people who claim to be communists. I refer back to my first post in this conversation where I said “insofar as those labels are used today”. I can’t think of a single practical implementation of political systems by these self-proclaimed communists that makes me think “this is what Marx would have wanted”.

          • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -13 months ago

            If you truly believe they are “working towards communism”, I don’t think any amount of evidence or differing interpretations of the data will sway your faith.

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          So your stance is essentially “real communism has never been tried”?

          No. My stance is that Communism is a stage of development that comes after Socialism, and no existing Socialist society has yet made it to Communism. This is the standard Marxist view of societal development, you cannot adopt Communism through fiat. The CPC tried under Mao and the Gang of Four, and failed because they didn’t develop the Means of Production beforehand.

          Technically correct, I suppose, but what really matters is the actions of people who claim to be communists. I refer back to my first post in this conversation where I said “insofar as those labels are used today”. I can’t think of a single practical implementation of political systems by these self-proclaimed communists that makes me think “this is what Marx would have wanted”.

          Then I suggest you explain why. I have offered context and analysis of the USSR and PRC as they directly relate to Marx and Engels, without needing to reference Lenin or other Marxists. I would say my number one reading recommendation, if you don’t feel like elaborating on why you believe AES states to be not “Marx approved,” would be Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. Additionally, the previously linked Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is critical for understanding the Marxist theory of development via Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

          • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -13 months ago

            Then I suggest you explain why.

            Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time. You’re posting in a thread about China’s leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I’m not sure how much clearer this could all be.

            • Cowbee [he/they]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              23 months ago

              Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time.

              I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything. Simply saying “the vibes they give off are scary and the vibes have been getting stronger over time” is not mechanical analysis.

              You’re posting in a thread about China’s leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I’m not sure how much clearer this could all be.

              You’ll forgive me for taking the nuances of a Business Insider article with respect to a Socialist country with a grain of salt. Western sources often call firing officials “disappearing” them, because they are intentionally doing Red Scare propaganda. You’ll note that if you read the article, it’s relatively light on facts and hard evidence, and tries to link phenomena without hard basis.

              You’ll also notice that the near identical story, down to the format, has been posted to other western media outlets like WSJ, in light of the US approving billions of dollars to discredit the PRC.

              This is why I am asking for hard, mechanical analysis.

              • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -23 months ago

                I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything.

                This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine. I would point to the horrifically botched early response to COVID; ongoing suppression of protests on June 4th of every year; the crushing of dissent in Hong Kong; Xi’s very public sidelining of Hu; the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang; mass surveillance; Xi’s undoing of term limits; and the list goes on, but that should be enough to tide you over for now.

                • This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine

                  No it isn’t.

                  Cowbee has asked multiple times for you to expand upon what you stated such that it can be engaged with. Much of what you have stated is vibes, it doesn’t contain any specifics. You feel that Marx would have been this way, you feel that china is authoritarian, none of it engages with reality, none of it contains any sources. If asking for this is bad-faith pedantry, then no discussion can be had.

                • Cowbee [he/they]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  23 months ago

                  This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry

                  Is it bad-faith to ask for examples and critique instead of vibes? I have given analysis and referenced Marx and Engels directly, as well as linked Wikipedia articles so you know how the PRC operates democratically. I find it fairly insulting to call it bad-faith pedantry to ask for similar in return, if you’re going to take a definitive stance.

                  I would point to the horrifically botched early response to COVID; ongoing suppression of protests on June 4th of every year; the crushing of dissent in Hong Kong; Xi’s very public sidelining of Hu; the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang; mass surveillance; Xi’s undoing of term limits; and the list goes on, but that should be enough to tide you over for now.

                  Do you have any links at all? What was botched about the COVID response, did another country do it better? This is a firehose of vague statements, the closest of which to an actual point being the abolition of term limits, but you don’t explain how you think that goes against democratic control and operation. You just kind of shot-gunned blanket statements without giving any of them any kind of attention or analysis.

                  • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -23 months ago

                    Perhaps I should have used the term “sealioning” instead of bad-faith pedantry. When you come at people with trite gems like this one,

                    abolition of term limits, but you don’t explain how you think that goes against democratic control and operation

                    you make it very difficult for others to believe you’re interested in a genuine conversation rather that endlessly bogging down your interlocutor with minutiae and winning a war of attrition. Here’s a hard source for you. Enjoy, because I’ve finished wasting my time here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

                    Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. […] It has been described as “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”.