Claim: China Is BY FAR the ‘Lesser Evil’ Great Power vs the USA – BadEmpanada

[Fleetinglife]

BadEmpanada: Maybe when China does even a tenth of an Iraq War, we can discuss otherwise.

BadEmpanada's Grievances with the Imperialism Equvocation Argument: ''There are some people on the left who really love to equivocate between U.S. and China, they try to frame them as equally bad imperialisms or whatever. They are both equally bad, they say, you shouldn't choose between one imperialism and the other! These people, tend to frame U.S. imperialism as if it could be like a force for good and that the problem with U.S. imperialism is that it does bad things rather than good things, like taking out the correct dictators as if that's not ready the way that it works. These people also love to spat out the talking point that: ''Chinese hegemony would be worse than U.S. hegemony'', or ''also that Chinese or U.S. imperialism is also just bad as each other'' or that ''China would be bad as the U.S. if it could be'' and that doesn't really make much sense if you think about it.

BadEmpanada's Arguments against the Equivocation Argument: ''For one, Chinese imperialism, or whatever you want to call it, Chinese intervention, Chinese economic globalism, basically essentially the way that China participates in the neoliberal world order is not the same way that the U.S. does. 

Imagine let's say that you are a country in Africa, you know let's say that you had three or four U.S. sponsored coups, a couple of U.S. sponsored proxy wars in the past, your country has been completely destroyed by Canadian mining companies, you know all that sort of thing. So, I can choose between:

1. Loaning out my port for 100 years to a Chinese company, without any additional strings attached apart from the fact that if I default on these loans they will take the port or
2. Or I can get a loan from like the IMF, which is like a U.S., EU proxy organization with strings attached that say like: ''You must abolish all labor laws", "You must increase the workday from eight to twelve hours" etc, etc. as part of receiving the loan, so-called ''structural adjustments" they call them in order to maybe develop that port.

• Conclusion: So if you opt for the second path, you will be essentially be coerced into changing the nature of your state by the U.S., or in the first instance you could get a lease from a Chinese company for a similar sort of purpose without having to fundamentally change anything. Which one would you choose?

BadEmpanada: Well, I would choose the Chinese one every time, considering that China doesn't have the sort of history that the U.S. does in a lot of these countries, and even if they didn't have that history in your country specifically you can look at your neighboring countries where they have done this and be like: "Well, maybe, that's a bad idea".

Obviously, the ideal would be that you don't have to take that loan at all, you don't have to loan the port at all or anything like that but lamentably you often kind of have to unless you want your results to be extremely delayed, you know countries aren't lone individuals, they can't just say: "Oh, you know, I will save up money from taxes and then I will build this thing in twenty years." No. You loan, you build it now, and hopefully, you building it that much earlier will give you the capacity to make enough money off of it, you know, you're making so much profit on it that you can pay the interest on it with the profits that you are making, so you really don't lose anything, in the end, you basically gain.

But the problem is that you can get a loan from China like that, which doesn't have many strings attached that you know that they are upfront with what they want from you or you can get a loan from the U.S. which is from the U.S. proxy organizations like the IMF or directly from the U.S. which comes with terms like: "Um, you have to like abolish worker's rights or introduce competitiveness into the healthcare sector or something like that" - look up structural adjustments, it's incredibly common, this is essentially the way that the IMF forced neoliberalism on a lot of countries in the Third World, especially ten, twenty, thirty and forty years ago. 

BadEmpanada: So, we are not talking about the same thing here, China doesn't have this history of direct intervention that the U.S. does nor does it ask for the same sort of terms but that doesn't mean that Chinese imperialism isn't imperialism or that it is good or whatever, obviously not. The exportation of capital was essentially one of Lenin's top criteria for the very definition of imperialism and they are obviously doing these sort of things.

Transcript up until 4:30 mark in a 16-minute long video.

 

BadEmpanada's response to: "Yeah, they [China] don't want to impose their system on anyone else... *if we ignore Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang."

BadEmpanada: "Wow that's true, they do want to impose their system on their sovereign territory, just like the US did in Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Puerto Rico... Except China actually has a much stronger claim to those places than the US does to those I listed."

Comment: ''China has literally no rightful claim on Taiwan. Neither on HK. Unless you believe irridentism is legitimate...''

BadEmpanada: ''That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. HK is quite literally internationally recognized as Chinese territory by every single country in the world. Not only that, but before that, it was handed over to China in a combination of a negotiated settlement for HK proper and the end of a 99-year lease on the New Territories which both sides complied with practically to the letter. HK was also only originally taken from China through obviously coercive treaties forced upon China via military means. So calling this 'irredentism' is completely bizarre and ridiculous. What's next dude you gonna say that saying that Scotland is part of the UK is irredentism? IT LITERALLY FACTUALLY IS. Taiwan on the other hand... Literally, a bunch of fascists who lost a civil war went and holed up in a nearby island that was legally sovereign territory of China, of which the PRC was the new legitimate government. They then straight up genocided the locals when they took exception to this, and up until very recently said Fascists ruled Taiwan and EVEN THEY still considered it to be part of China, they just wanted to rule over the mainland themselves too. **Taiwan's constitution IN FACT STILL CLAIMS ALL OF MAINLAND CHINA**!! Irredentism is when you say that a country that says it's part of your country in its constitution is a part of your country, apparently. It is quite literally territory stolen by the losing side of civil war and the PRC's claim on it is perfectly legitimate by any reasonable standard of typical liberal international law. Calling this 'irredentism' is absolutely ludicrous. It's like if the South 'escaped' by annexing Hawaii after losing the US civil war and then saying 50 years later that the US government should just let them have it otherwise they're doing 'IRREDENTISM'. Ludicrous stuff, a pin of shame for both of you. Of course, though, you're not going to say that Texas being a part of the USA is 'irredentism', are you? A cut and dry case of it right there. But it's only a word for the non-whites, isn't it? Racist."

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[hamedsf]

lesser evil? haha

china is the sneaky leech.

[Stovo]

China is lower on the spiral than the US, so is more likely to behave in selfish ways. Of course, the US also behaves incredibly selfishly because they are relatively low compared to higher stages. 

It is true, however, that most Americans believe China to be more "evil" than it really is because they find them threatening and are brainwashed by American media. 

[erik8lrl]

Everyone is "evil" to some degree depending on your perspective.

How evil they are to you depends on how much of a threat it is to your survival in the perspective you hold. 

To someone whose survival comes from/depends on democracy and freedom (in the US sense), China will seem like a huge survival threat if the person is not good at sense-making and or are underdeveloped consciously (below yellow).  

The more perspectives you have, the less evil everyone will seem.   

In God's perspective, everything is good.  

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by erik8lrl

[Stovo]

10 minutes ago, erik8lrl said:

Everyone is "evil" to some degree depending on your perspective.

How evil they are to you depends on how much of a threat it is to your survival in the perspective you hold. 

To someone whose survival comes from/depends on democracy and freedom (in the US sense), China will seem like a huge survival threat if the person is not good at sense-making and or are underdeveloped consciously (below yellow).  

The more perspectives you have, the less evil everyone will seem.   

In God's perspective, everything is good.  

 

@erik8lrl Yes, you've articulated this well. 

[Fleetinglife]

1 hour ago, Stovo said:

China is lower on the spiral than the US, so is more likely to behave in selfish ways. Of course, the US also behaves incredibly selfishly because they are relatively low compared to higher stages. 

Yes, this is true objectively speaking counting Chinese individuals and the nature of their system in the Mainland. Yet lesser developed and Third World countries are more inclined to sign infrastructure development deals and loans for investment and economic development with the Chinese than with the stage Orange|Green U.S. government and their affiliated international financial institutions because of the history of those stage Orange policies wanting to change the nature of how their state operates and would rather opt for stage Blue/Orange lease deals with high risks that entail no other strings attached policy other than losing your property if you default on repaying your loan rather than an upper stage policy by the U.S. proxies remaking their state in the image of their own. It almost seems like these stage Red/Blue are more willing to accept a lower stage approach to their economic development with no strings attached than a higher stage approach that involves changing fundamentally how their state works. So it seems it's not all China's selfish coercive tactics and diplomacy at play but also the choice of these countries looking at the history of the policy implemented in their country in the past to make a decision who they rather want to sign economic development deals with and under what terms and conditions out of the Big Three, US, EU, and China. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Stovo]

9 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

Yes, this is true objectively speaking counting Chinese individuals and the nature of their system in the Mainland. Yet lesser developed and Third World countries are more inclined to sign infrastructure development deals and loans for investment and economic development with the Chinese than with the stage Orange|Green U.S. government and their affiliated international financial institutions because of the history of those stage Orange policies wanting to change the nature of how their state operates and would rather opt for stage Blue/Orange lease deals with high risks that entail no other strings attached policy other than losing your property if you default on repaying your loan rather than an upper stage policy by the U.S. proxies remaking their state in the image of their own. It almost seems like these stage Red/Blue are more willing to accept a lower stage approach to their economic development with no strings attached than a higher stage approach that involves changing fundamentally how their state works. So it seems it's not all China's selfish coercive tactics and diplomacy at play but also the choice of these countries looking at the history of the policy implemented in their country in the past to make a decision who they rather want to sign economic development deals with and under what terms and conditions out of the Big Three, US, EU, and China. 

@Fleetinglife They just want investment, and China is more accomodating to corrupt/unethical regimes yes. 

China also happens to have more money to spend due to a flood of US dollars they receive from their trade surplus. They no longer wish to buy US bonds with these dollars because of the poor returns these now offer, so are more inclined to invest it in other countries for their own benefit. 

How does this make China the lesser of 2 evils, however? 

[Fleetinglife]

1 hour ago, erik8lrl said:

Everyone is "evil" to some degree depending on your perspective.

How evil they are to you depends on how much of a threat it is to your survival in the perspective you hold. 

I agree I had this insight in my head a few times when thinking about history and some historical events and comparing it to now, but I think this is even more especially true when it comes to massive collective ego formations and mass mental constructions such as the population living in countries and particulary the state and those in charge of it who's identity survival is often most at stake when leading a country since it is reflection, more often than not, of the sum total of the stage of the development of the whole of the population of the country in the way they govern it and maintain their positions and identity survival as leaders of this mass collective ego formation

However, determining how evil something is in terms of relations between mass complex collectives that threaten the survival of the perspective of one or both is a tricky endeavor, since one of those perspectives in this instance contains within itself various spectrums of development in spheres such as culture, economy, religion, and politics, etc. that can be threatened in terms of survival of the identity reflecting that level of their development by another perspective higher or lower in those fields that by its existence undermines the survival and legitimacy of the first one. I thought about it and as you can see am not yet until the point where I can clearly express it in words and clarify these ideas about this survival of identities perspectives interaction on a massive complex scale such as entire countries. 

1 hour ago, erik8lrl said:

The more perspectives you have, the less evil everyone will seem.   

In God's perspective, everything is good.  

Yes, but to gain them you have to undergo a lot of suffering in deconstructing them a lot and experiencing the death and transformation of each of them while each fiber in your ego is intuitively against this and resisting this with all its emotional backslash and homeostasis to willingly muster the willpower and determination to undergo through this suffering willingly and through a prolonged period. It's very counter-intuitive since every fiber in your mind/body is heavily resisting this and trying to convince and fool you to not attempt this emotionally and psychically risky endeavor and sticking with what you know and adapted and got used to ensure maximum certainty, comfort, and prosperous surviving without a lot of pains and risks. 

[Fleetinglife]

39 minutes ago, Stovo said:

How does this make China the lesser of 2 evils, however? 

I think the author of the clip mostly refers to the impact and results of Chinese intervention in these countries specifically or other developing countries versus the US and proxy results in the past. US intervention would aim if their investment or loan with interest repayment was under threat to destabilize the political and economic systems of these countries and to export their system in them in order to make sure that the returns with interests or profits happen and would subsequently go to such lengths in achieving this to internally destabilize those countries fomenting war and conflict. China only has a history of this in Vietnam and North Korea though because it felt its territory and sovereignty were under threat from other great power interests in those countries bordering them. It doesn't aim to change the system and attempt to destabilize countries it's dealing business with or use coercive measures like sanctioning them to keep them in their sphere of influence and have power over them like the US does to Venezuela and Cuba. This is why he considers China to be the lesser evil in terms of its own imperialism when dealing with those countries compared to the total of US history in this area, that is what I think he mostly refers to when he says a 'lesser evil'. 

Here is an interesting historical example I found of why the U.S. multinationals and government were so eager to support the overthrow of Allende in Chile and willing to fund the right-wing death squads and fascist opposition against him and the government.

Sorry, it's in Serbian I forgot, My bad I will see if I can maybe translate it in Google Translate so you can understand what it is saying.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Blackhawk]

China is way more evil than US.

China is a dictatorship country which violates human rights, etc.

[Fleetinglife]

6 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

US

What about human rights in other countries that you target with economic sanctions and intervene to destabilize governments of other countries with national agencies in order to secure loan repayment of those countries with interests by military means and to help your countries business interests by undermining and destroying those countries own? What is that called from the perspective of the country that you are intervening in?

13 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

China is a dictatorship country which violates human rights, etc.

Do you mean the wrong kind of dictatorship, while the good ones get a free pass? What about the human rights under the US duopoly political system of investigative journalists Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, and whistleblowers Daniel Hale and Edward Snowden? What about the human rights of the largest prison population per countries capita in the world that does slave labour for for-profit companies and ends up in prison for non-violent drug offences and sometimes more likely because of their skin colour? What about the human rights of blacks murdered by cops with impunity that face no prosecution or criminal charges afterwards under the veil of the law?

Evil is relative from the point one is looking at it or from being on the receiving end of it. I would guess that for some African countries China seems less evil than the US given their expereince with the meddling and deals with the former and its proxies. It's all perspective my dude.

[Stovo]

1 hour ago, Fleetinglife said:

I think the author of the clip mostly refers to the impact and results of Chinese intervention in these countries specifically or other developing countries versus the US and proxy results in the past. US intervention would aim if their investment or loan with interest repayment was under threat to destabilize the political and economic systems of these countries and to export their system in them in order to make sure that the returns with interests or profits happen and would subsequently go to such lengths in achieving this to internally destabilize those countries fomenting war and conflict. China only has a history of this in Vietnam and North Korea though because it felt its territory and sovereignty were under threat from other great power interests in those countries bordering them. It doesn't aim to change the system and attempt to destabilize countries it's dealing business with or use coercive measures like sanctioning them to keep them in their sphere of influence and have power over them like the US does to Venezuela and Cuba. This is why he considers China to be the lesser evil in terms of its own imperialism when dealing with those countries compared to the total of US history in this area, that is what I think he mostly refers to when he says a 'lesser evil'. 

Here is an interesting historical example I found of why the U.S. multinationals and government were so eager to support the overthrow of Allende in Chile and willing to fund the right-wing death squads and fascist opposition against him and the government.

Sorry, it's in Serbian I forgot, My bad I will see if I can maybe translate it in Google Translate so you can understand what it is saying.

@Fleetinglife China does not intervene in other countries or sanction them because it has limited ability to do so. ONLY the US can do significant sanctions because they control the world's reserve currency. ONLY the US can intervene in other countries in a significant way because their military is, and has been since WW2, by far the most powerful military in the world. 

Prior to WW2, the US was almost entirely isolationist. They rarely interfered in other countries and had no desire to do so. They were quietly building up wealth and power. Only once a country becomes the predominant world superpower can they intervene in any significant way, and they usually do so to protect their status as the world superpower. 

If China grows to be the most powerful nation I am absolutely certain that they will intervene militarily when it suits them, and when it suits their interests to do so. 

My thoughts are that China will never become as dominant as the US was at its height. The US after WW2 was something like half of world GDP, which is absolutely mind-boggling. I'm not sure if a single empire has ever managed this before, which means the US after WW2 was potentially the most dominant power ever to exist in history. 

My best guess is that western nations will unite as a kind of counterbalance to Chinese influence. China will likely be the most powerful single nation, but with a significantly powerful western bloc on par with them in many ways. In which case, China will be unable to intervene as significantly as the US had been able to because their relative level of dominance will be lower. 

[Fleetinglife]

49 minutes ago, Stovo said:

Prior to WW2, the US was almost entirely isolationist.

Puerto Rico colonization, Cuban War and colonization (American war with Spain and later the Cubans themselves over Cuba's status the 1900s), Philipines colonization 1900s, Hawaii Kingdom colonization and other Pacific island nations,  Mexico and Mexican Revolution 1910s, Nicaragua coup 1910s, Guatemala coup 1910s, US and Spanish War over the southern and south-western part of the future US 1848s, Honduras coup 1910s beg to differ.

 

55 minutes ago, Stovo said:

If China grows to be the most powerful nation I am absolutely certain that they will intervene militarily when it suits them, and when it suits their interests to do so. 

I don't know, I can't tell if their intervention in the country that recognizes their country in the constitution to be part of their country actually will be as destructive as Iraq or Afghanistan or in Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not, they have no good reason to, but we shall wait and see. 

1 hour ago, Stovo said:

My thoughts are that China will never become as dominant as the US was at its height. The US after WW2 was something like half of world GDP, which is absolutely mind-boggling. I'm not sure if a single empire has ever managed this before, which means the US after WW2 was potentially the most dominant power ever to exist in history. 

My best guess is that western nations will unite as a kind of counterbalance to Chinese influence. China will likely be the most powerful single nation, but with a significantly powerful western bloc on par with them in many ways. In which case, China will be unable to intervene as significantly as the US had been able to because their relative level of dominance will be lower. 

I see a very similar global counterbalance scenario playing out in the future within the context of the era of globalization, we will see how other Eurasian bloc countries such as Russia, North Korea, and Iran or non-Western aligned such as Venezuela or Bolivia, or BRIC will play into that global equation. I imagine it seeing it as something closely or slightly similar though not nearly certain or identical as the three great global power blocs like in Orwell's work Oceania - West, Eurasia -East, and Eastasia - Non-aligned or something out of Samuel Hantigtons work 'Clash of Civilizations' civilizations blocs. 

[Fleetinglife]

Just wanted to share this since I found it kinda cute and funny regarding the aforementioned US, EU and British media narrative about anything that China does or is involved with:

 

[Stovo]

27 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

Puerto Rico colonization, Cuban War and colonization (American war with Spain and later the Cubans themselves over Cuba's status the 1900s), Philipines colonization 1900s, Hawaii Kingdom colonization and other Pacific island nations,  Mexico and Mexican Revolution 1910s, Nicaragua coup 1910s, Guatemala coup 1910s, US and Spanish War over the southern and south-western part of the future US 1848s, Honduras coup 1910s beg to differ.

Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Taiwan, Hong Kong... You could say that all these parts are a part of China, as the Chinese would, but the history is complex and murky. China has a history of various clans or dynasties fighting between themselves for various parts of what we now call China. Also, although China did not conquer some surrounding areas like Japan, the lesser powers in the region did acknowledge China as the dominant power and paid tributes to avoid any potential wars or invasions, which the lesser powers would clearly lose. 

The US history you describe there is relatively similar. Ie wars that involved the formation of modern-day USA, and limited in scope to their local region.

 

34 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

I don't know, I can't tell if their intervention in the country that recognizes their country in the constitution to be part of their country actually will be as destructive as Iraq or Afghanistan or in Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not, they have no good reason to, but we shall wait and see. 

If one day China has the largest military, and some terrorists in Afghanistan decide to blow up 2 skyscrapers in Shanghai, and going to war to stop those terrorists could be done without antagonising other strong nations, you better believe they would go to war. 

37 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

I see a very similar global counterbalance scenario playing out in the future within the context of the era of globalization, we will see how other Eurasian bloc countries such as Russia, North Korea, and Iran or non-Western aligned such as Venezuela or Bolivia, or BRIC will play into that global equation. I imagine it seeing it as something closely or slightly similar though not nearly certain or identical as the three great global power blocs like in Orwell's work Oceania - West, Eurasia -East, and Eastasia - Non-aligned or something out of Samuel Hantigtons work 'Clash of Civilizations' civilizations blocs. 

Yes, I agree

[Fleetinglife]

51 minutes ago, Stovo said:

Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Taiwan, Hong Kong... You could say that all these parts are a part of China, as the Chinese would, but the history is complex and murky. China has a history of various clans or dynasties fighting between themselves for various parts of what we now call China. Also, although China did not conquer some surrounding areas like Japan, the lesser powers in the region did acknowledge China as the dominant power and paid tributes to avoid any potential wars or invasions, which the lesser powers would clearly lose. 

The US history you describe there is relatively similar. Ie wars that involved the formation of modern-day USA, and limited in scope to their local region.

Yes, I agree with your points and assessment regarding these historical territorial disputes and issues as well. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[erik8lrl]

@Fleetinglife Yes, it is not an easy path. The ego development process is very complex. Wisdom does not develop overnight. It takes courage, work, and time. So keep going, and as you deconstruct/understand more and more perspectives, it will become easier and easier.  

[DocWatts]

More like China does not yet have the same level of global power and influence as the US, though that gap has been progressively shrinking over the last half century.

If the United States is a bigger threat to world peace than China, it's not because China's governmental system is any more ethical than the United States. It's because China hasn't had as much of an incentive (nor the opportunity) to become an Imperialist power to the same degree as the United States.

Look to Tibet or Hong Kong if you have any doubts that China has moral qualms about engaging in Imperialism, or at least any more than the United States.

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by DocWatts

[Stovo]

11 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

More like China does not yet have the same level of global power and influence as the US, though that gap has been progressively shrinking over the last half century.

If the United States is a bigger threat to world peace than China, it's not because China's governmental system is any more ethical than the United States. It's because China hasn't had as much of an incentive (nor the opportunity) to become an Imperialist power to the same degree as the United States.

Look to Tibet or Hong Kong if you have any doubts that China has moral qualms about engaging in Imperialism, or at least any more than the United States.

 

Well said. 

[Fleetinglife]

@Stovo

@DocWatts

The New Chinese Cultural Revolution against Western liberal globalism and global speculator and financialized capitalism.

Personal Note: My aim is not to simp for China but to inform people in this post on the official Chinese perspective on things.

''Li Guangman, a columnist for the now-defunct website Chawang and former editor of the trade publication Central China Electric Power, first published his opinion piece, “Everyone Can Sense That a Profound Transformation is Underway!,” to his public WeChat account @李光满冰点时评. People’s Daily, Xinhua, Guangming Daily, and other prominent state media platforms promptly picked up the piece. While it is unclear whether the move was coordinated with Li beforehand, it is not unprecedented for state media to elevate nationalistic bloggers who echo, or even foreshadow national policy. In 2014, Xi Jinping promoted Zhou Xiaoping, an ultra-nationalist blogger with a particular distaste for the U.S., as a model for other writers at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art, in a speech evocative of Mao Zedong’s 1942 “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art.”

Li’s sweeping, impassioned essay used an ongoing celebrity culture “clean up” campaign as a launching point to argue that the United States “is waging biological warfare, cyberwarfare, space warfare and public opinion battles against China, and is ramping up efforts to foment a ‘color revolution’ by mobilizing a fifth column within China.” In his vigorous conclusion, Li dismisses recent reforms as superficial, arguing that it is time for a more radical transformation:

China’s entertainment industry has never lacked for scandals that stink to high heaven. Taken together, the recent back-to-back scandals involving Kris Wu and Henry Huo, Zhang Zhehan’s “devil worship” at Japan’s Yasukuni Shrine, and now the rape allegation against Hunan TV host Qian Feng have made people feel that the Chinese entertainment industry is rotten to the core. Without a swift crackdown, entertainment will not be the only thing that rots—the arts, literature, culture, performance, film, and television spheres will all follow suit.

What sort of feeling do we get, just by looking at the events of the last two days—the crackdown on fan groups, Zheng Shuang being fined, and works by Zhao Wei and Gao Xiaosong being banned and de-platformed? If we take a broader political perspective on this series of events, we can discern a historical and developmental trend. 

Consider the suspension of Ant Group’s IPO, the central government’s antitrust policies and reorganization of the economic order, the 18.2 billion yuan fine levied on Alibaba and the investigation of Didi Global, the grand commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, the proposed path to common prosperity, and the recent series of actions to clean up the mess in the entertainment industry. What these events tell us is that a monumental change is taking place in China and that the economic, financial, cultural, and political spheres are undergoing a profound transformation—or, one could say, a profound revolution. It marks a return from “capitalist cliques” to the People, a shift from “capital-centered” to “people-centered.” It is, therefore, a political transformation in which the People will once again be front and center, and all those who obstruct this people-centered transformation will be left behind. This profound transformation also marks a return to the original intent of the Chinese Communist Party, a return to a people-centered approach, and a return to the essence of socialism.

This transformation will wash away all the dust: capital markets will no longer be a paradise for get-rich-quick capitalists, cultural markets will no longer be heaven for sissy-boy stars, and news and public opinion will no longer be in the position of worshipping western culture. It is a return to the revolutionary spirit, a return to heroism, a return to courage and righteousness. We need to bring all forms of cultural chaos under control and build a vibrant, healthy, virile, intrepid, and people-oriented culture. We need to combat the manipulation of capital markets by big capital, fight platform-based monopolies, prevent bad money from driving out the good, and ensure the flow of capital to high-tech companies, manufacturers, and companies operating in the real economy. The ongoing restructuring of private tutoring organizations and school districts will clean up the chaos in the educational system, bring about a true return to accessibility and fairness, and give ordinary people room for upward mobility. In the future, we must also bring high housing prices and exorbitant medical expenses under control, and completely level the “three great mountains” of education, medical care, and housing. Although we are not trying to “kill the rich to aid the poor,” we need to find a practical solution to a worsening income gap that allows the rich to keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. Common prosperity means allowing ordinary workers to enjoy a larger share of the social distribution of wealth. This transformation will bring a breath of fresh air to our society. Current efforts to crack down on the arts, entertainment, film, and television spheres are not nearly robust enough. We must use all the means at our disposal to strike down various forms of celebrity worship and fan culture, stamp out “pretty-boy” and “sissy-boy” tendencies in our national character, and ensure that our arts, entertainment, film, and television spheres are truly upright and upstanding. Those working in the arts, entertainment, film, and television must go down to the grassroots and allow ordinary workers and citizens to become the protagonists, to play the leading roles in our literature and art.

China faces an increasingly fraught and complex international landscape as the United States menaces China with worsening military threats, economic and technological blockades, attacks on our financial system, and attempts at political and diplomatic isolation. The U.S. is waging biological warfare, cyber warfare, space warfare, and public opinion battles against China, and is ramping up efforts to foment a “color revolution” by mobilizing the fifth column within China. If we rely on the barons of capitalism to battle the forces of imperialism and hegemony, if we continue our obeisance to American “tittytainment” tactics, if we allow this generation of young people to lose their mettle and masculinity, then who needs an enemy—we will have brought destruction upon ourselves, much like the Soviet Union back in the day, when it allowed the nation to disintegrate, its wealth to be looted, and its population to sink into calamity. The profound transformations now taking place in China are a direct response to an increasingly fraught and complex international landscape and a direct response to the savage and violent attacks that the U.S. has already begun to launch against China.

Every one of us can sense that a profound social transformation is underway, and it is not limited to the realm of capital or entertainment. It is not enough to make superficial changes, to tear down what is already rotten; we must go deeper, and scrape the poison from the bone. We must clean the house and clear the air to make our society a healthier one and to make all members of our society happy in body and mind.'' [Chinese]

Introduction by Joseph Brouwer; translation by Alex Yu and Cindy Carter.

Source:https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/08/translation-everyone-can-sense-that-a-profound-transformation-is-underway/

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Fleetinglife