Chinese Communist Party Megathread - Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Hellbound Hellhound]

A lot of China's economic weight at the moment comes from the sheer number of people that it has. People are more than just mouths to feed, they drive your economy, China has a massive industry yes, (But that's been under threat, companies moving south into asia, or even some industries finding it cheaper to build automated plants in the US instead, after all low Chinese wages offset shipping, and without that and cheap power in the states, why not) but without a population to sell to that's fucking worthless. Fear is that China grew it's population too quickly, and when it shrinks the relative wealth will grow too slowly and the economy will collapse.

Add that to it's housing market being somewhat driven by the fact that Chinese home ownership is very high, less people means less demand for housing, risks potential collapse of a bubble speculated to be huge portion of China's economy (Hell I've heard people speculate that a 25% decrease in housing value in China would knock like 1% off global GDP)

And again people don't exactly tend to just sit around and starve happily, so they're a rebellion risk. The CCP can't afford large scale rebellions gaining traction. It's also worth considering the male-female imbalance (20 Million surplus males I think?). Men with no prospects of raising a family, nothing to really lose, we've seen the kind of culture that balance can generate, and it looks like the Middle East.

And another thing worth mentioning is that China's population is aging fast. It's already on average older than the average American. Old people tend to contribute little and cost a dime. And liquidating them might stroke anger and fear from the population, another domestic issue.

Then again, the Great leap forward killed 50M and the Chinese did fuckall so your opinion isn't unfounded.

I think the difference is that the Great Leap Forward happened when the average Chinese were practically still peasants living under an agrarian economy. In that context, it's not that hard to understand why they would turn a blind eye to the collateral damage of the revolution, because really, they had very little to lose. It was a choice between living as a peasant, dying as a peasant, or the promise (however illusory) of a better life.

Nowadays, things are different. The Chinese people have experienced an unprecedented rise in living standards within a single generation, and many will likely have aspirations for that to continue. The Chinese leadership clearly think so too, as evidenced by Xi's conscious decision to borrow from American mythology with his promotion of the phrase "the Chinese dream".

The problem is that China's luck is running out. They have an aging, shrinking population, and their principle economic advantage of having a massive working population in a low wage economy is an edge they're rapidly losing thanks to more competitive markets to their south. The sunk cost fallacy and the economics of scale will protect them for awhile, but once the scales begin to tip in favor of automation, I'd say it's pretty much game over.

Having a huge population is no longer the advantage it once was: militarily, culturally, or economically.

Militarily, it's arguably a disadvantage, as modern wars are won by who has the best weapons and the means to pay for them, not the number of men on the ground (which also cost a lot of money, but only in salaries and benefits, which can't be redeemed in a way which increases military readiness like equipment can).

Culturally, China's population is practically irrelevant, because China is an insular society which has very little cultural reach beyond it's own borders. There are single US cities which arguably have more soft power than China does.

Economically, having a lot of people is only really an advantage in terms of what they bring to the labor market, but again, that's increasingly no longer going to be the case thanks to automation. As China attempts to transition to a consumer and service based economy, it's population will be rendered moot entirely, as it's often just as easy if not easier for companies to sell one expensive thing to one wealthy urbanite than it is to sell ten cheap things to ten rural proles.

I'd say the CCP's stranglehold on power is far from guaranteed as time goes on. It exists now because they're continuing to make good on their promise to raise living standards for the Chinese people, but once that is no longer the case, I wouldn't be surprised if it all ends in a Ceausescu moment.

 

[Random Internet Person]

I think the difference is that the Great Leap Forward happened when the average Chinese were practically still peasants living under an agrarian economy. In that context, it's not that hard to understand why they would turn a blind eye to the collateral damage of the revolution, because really, they had very little to lose. It was a choice between living as a peasant, dying as a peasant, or the promise (however illusory) of a better life.

Nowadays, things are different. The Chinese people have experienced an unprecedented rise in living standards within a single generation, and many will likely have aspirations for that to continue. The Chinese leadership clearly think so too, as evidenced by Xi's conscious decision to borrow from American mythology with his promotion of the phrase "the Chinese dream".

The problem is that China's luck is running out. They have an aging, shrinking population, and their principle economic advantage of having a massive working population in a low wage economy is an edge they're rapidly losing thanks to more competitive markets to their south. The sunk cost fallacy and the economics of scale will protect them for awhile, but once the scales begin to tip in favor of automation, I'd say it's pretty much game over.

Having a huge population is no longer the advantage it once was: militarily, culturally, or economically.

Militarily, it's arguably a disadvantage, as modern wars are won by who has the best weapons and the means to pay for them, not the number of men on the ground (which also cost a lot of money, but only in salaries and benefits, which can't be redeemed in a way which increases military readiness like equipment can).

Culturally, China's population is practically irrelevant, because China is an insular society which has very little cultural reach beyond it's own borders. There are single US cities which arguably have more soft power than China does.

Economically, having a lot of people is only really an advantage in terms of what they bring to the labor market, but again, that's increasingly no longer going to be the case thanks to automation. As China attempts to transition to a consumer and service based economy, it's population will be rendered moot entirely, as it's often just as easy if not easier for companies to sell one expensive thing to one wealthy urbanite than it is to sell ten cheap things to ten rural proles.

I'd say the CCP's stranglehold on power is far from guaranteed as time goes on. It exists now because they're continuing to make good on their promise to raise living standards for the Chinese people, but once that is no longer the case, I wouldn't be surprised if it all ends in a Ceausescu moment.

Well, I haven't heard anything about opposition to the CCP since the Hong Kong laws last July crushed those protests, but if what you're getting at is that we're seeing the all in push of the CCP to achieve their goals of what could be described as a form of world domination where they control things from the shadows since they're not in a position to seize things by brute force.....I think I'm inclined to agree with you.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Lots of people said then Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, let's see if it'll be the CCP graveyard or if the CCP will be the one who'll end that curse.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/poli...aves-china-xinjiang-terrorism-problem-us-exit ( https://archive.ph/24FJj )

The complete withdrawal of US and allied forces from Afghanistan later this year does not mean China will be able to establish its influence in the region or fill the security vacuum left by Washington, analysts have said.
Instead, the withdrawal and the uncertain security situation it poses, including the likelihood of a civil war, is likely to challenge China’s economic interests in the country and may even threaten security within China’s own borders, in the northwestern Xinjiang region where Beijing is trying to keep terrorism and extremism at bay.
In April, US President Joe Biden said the United States would withdraw its remaining troops from Afghanistan before September 11, the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks.

 

[Random Internet Person]

Lots of people said then Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, let's see if it'll be the CCP graveyard or if the CCP will be the one who'll end that curse.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/poli...aves-china-xinjiang-terrorism-problem-us-exit ( https://archive.ph/24FJj )

Eh, from the outset, it could look like another thing cooked up to keep Americans in Afghanistan, like the stories of Taliban bounties. Or more specifically, America has to stay because Afghanistan can't match the PLA, and it's not like the CIA can do something like train mujahedeen again.

 

[Jarolleon]

It's as if they have such a chip on your shoulder about the century of humiliation that they copied every negative stereotype about the Western imperialist powers. Jingoism, racism, pigheadedness, disregard for human life & the environment in the relentless pursuit of short-term gain, it's all there. The best part is all these stereotypes were emphasised by communists and fellow-travelers to propagate their worldview .It's as if they correlated these qualities with successful nations for so long that they convinced themselves it was the only way to get ahead.

 

[Random Internet Person]

Imagine having such a chip on your shoulder about the century of humiliation that you copy every negative stereotype about the Western imperialist powers. Jingoism, racism, pigheadedness, disregard for human life & the environment in the relentless pursuit of short-term gain, it's all there. The best part is all these stereotypes were emphasised by communists and fellow-travelers to propagate their worldview .It's as if they correlated these qualities with successful nations for so long that they convinced themselves it was the only way to get ahead.

Isn’t the saga of the CCP just the latest chapter of that worldview that’s been around since the ancient Chinese dynasties? The only difference is that Xi wants to be maybe even bigger than Chairman Mao in the name of pursuing his goals and desires for The People’s Republic.

 

[Kujo Jotaro]

It's as if they have such a chip on your shoulder about the century of humiliation that they copied every negative stereotype about the Western imperialist powers. Jingoism, racism, pigheadedness, disregard for human life & the environment in the relentless pursuit of short-term gain, it's all there. The best part is all these stereotypes were emphasised by communists and fellow-travelers to propagate their worldview .It's as if they correlated these qualities with successful nations for so long that they convinced themselves it was the only way to get ahead.

"No don't copy us, you can't hecking copy us we were bad then but now we're good." Idk bro it's a lot easier to copy others than it is to make your own way, especially when you can look over and see all the wealth said strategy accumulated for the west. For all the moral fagging that people do about how Da West is Ebil because Muh colonialism and pollution everyone sure loves the spoils of empire, and I don't see too many people throwing it all away voluntarily.

 

[Jarolleon]

"No don't copy us, you can't hecking copy us we were bad then but now we're good." Idk bro it's a lot easier to copy others than it is to make your own way, especially when you can look over and see all the wealth said strategy accumulated for the west. For all the moral fagging that people do about how Da West is Ebil because Muh colonialism and pollution everyone sure loves the spoils of empire, and I don't see too many people throwing it all away voluntarily.

Thing is they didn't even copy it fully, they just copied the commie caricature of it. 19th century Imperialism wasn't actually profitable for the most part, it was done for the prestige of bringing swathes of the human population into modernity (though it went about as well as "making the world safe for democracy"), and the Europeans of that time were so xenophilic that you got characters like Lawrence of Arabia or this guy quite often. That's why the Euros dropped their colonies like hot potatoes the moment it stopped being cool, it was a fashion trend not a winning strategy, like putting men on the moon or stacking your organisation with diversity tokens. What really made 19th century Europe OP was an economy that rewarded initiative and invention, and minimal state interference therein beyond prosecuting thieves & frauds.

Though it is telling that the leftist narrative about this era is so dominant that the discussion largely consists of leftists REEing about it and /pol/ types saying "That sounds pretty badass though".

 

[jje100010001]

Thing is they didn't even copy it fully, they just copied the commie caricature of it. 19th century Imperialism wasn't actually profitable for the most part, it was done for the prestige of bringing swathes of the human population into modernity (though it went about as well as "making the world safe for democracy"), and the Europeans of that time were so xenophilic that you got characters like Lawrence of Arabia or this guy quite often. That's why the Euros dropped their colonies like hot potatoes the moment it stopped being cool, it was a fashion trend not a winning strategy, like putting men on the moon or stacking your organisation with diversity tokens. What really made 19th century Europe OP was an economy that rewarded initiative and invention, and minimal state interference therein beyond prosecuting thieves & frauds.

Though it is telling that the leftist narrative about this era is so dominant that the discussion largely consists of leftists REEing about it and /pol/ types saying "That sounds pretty badass though".

In terms of total land percentage, most colonies were not profitable, but a few were, and boy were they profitable- profitable enough to pay for entire battleships (i.e. the HMS Malaya). As such, colonialist geopolitics was really aligned with protecting and improving logistics for those few indispensable colonies.

So as such, these enterprises should not be viewed in isolation- I doubt that colonies like Aden or Djibouti were ever in the black, but they served as important coaling & repair harbors for the sea-routes to these other, more important colonies (the most important being the British Raj)- and secondly, claiming territory was a necessity to prevent other European powers from claiming those lands.

You are correct for the most part in terms of colonies being dropped when they became unfashionable, but another part was the rising indigenous independence movements & increasing internal violence post-WW2. These insurrections plunged even integral territories like Algeria into the red due to the cost of policing, suppression, and the resultant detrimental effects on their economies. And European finances post-WW2 were really quite bad, due to the cost of the war & territorial destruction. As such, combined with the global postwar mood for decolonialization, it simply made sense at the time to drop physical empires in exchange for financial & political ones (i.e. FrancAfrique).

In hindsight though, some colonies who wanted to stay could have very much been kept for their geopolitical benefits...


Now away from this tangent back to China, another one of their more infuriating issues that I don't see a lot of people talking about is the total environmental disregard in their fishing fleets.

 

[Jarolleon]

In terms of total land percentage, most colonies were not profitable, but a few were, and boy were they profitable- profitable enough to pay for entire battleships (i.e. the HMS Malaya). As such, colonialist geopolitics was really aligned with protecting and improving logistics for those few indispensable colonies.

So as such, these enterprises should not be viewed in isolation- I doubt that colonies like Aden or Djibouti were ever in the black, but they served as important coaling & repair harbors for the sea-routes to these other, more important colonies (the most important being the British Raj)- and secondly, claiming territory was a necessity to prevent other European powers from claiming those lands.

You are correct for the most part in terms of colonies being dropped when they became unfashionable, but another part was the rising indigenous independence movements & increasing internal violence post-WW2. These insurrections plunged even integral territories like Algeria into the red due to the cost of policing, suppression, and the resultant detrimental effects on their economies. And European finances post-WW2 were really quite bad, due to the cost of the war & territorial destruction. As such, combined with the global postwar mood for decolonialization, it simply made sense at the time to drop physical empires in exchange for financial & political ones (i.e. FrancAfrique).

In hindsight though, some colonies who wanted to stay could have very much been kept for their geopolitical benefits...


Now away from this tangent back to China, another one of their more infuriating issues that I don't see a lot of people talking about is the total environmental disregard in their fishing fleets.

Yes, hearing about their fishing fleets and their general "take everything that you can get now" mentality during a Serpentza binge is what inspired my comment. IMO even with the insurgencies colonial abandonment was a question of will, The Portuguese Estado Novo, despite being a third-rate power held onto its colonies until it was overthrown by a leftist coup. And the Rhodesians held it together with a 6.5% white population & mainly folded because of sanctions.

 

[Random Internet Person]

I guess the 60s never really died. https://twitter.com/truthabtchina/status/1390382664725655553?s=21

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Kinda related but take what you will

Even they admit polls cant be 100% accurate

Update

When will the activists react?

 

[Random Internet Person]

What a cruel mistress. https://twitter.com/truthabtchina/status/1396298923766026243?s=21

 

[There'll be another time]

What a cruel mistress. https://twitter.com/truthabtchina/status/1396298923766026243?s=21

Beyond cruel, I dare say

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Update

When will the activists react?

As long as they received their paychecks from China, I have some doubts unless China goes on fat shaming like they did with Greta Thunberg.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

As long as they received their paychecks from China, I have some doubts unless China goes on fat shaming like they did with Greta Thunberg.

If they get flack for that they can counter by saying to them fat is privileged because too many skinny kids in other countries are starving and they could use that as an opportunity to promote their Belt and Road initiative in Africa.

 

[Uranus Pink]

Lots of people said then Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires,

Those people never studied history as the regions that make up Afghanistan been a part of an empire or another for most of recorded history. That graveyard meme came about after Lord William George Keith Elphinstone got nearly everyone under his command and protection killed by being dumbest most trusting naive motherfucker to be given command of anything in recent recorded English military history.

 

[Random Internet Person]

https://twitter.com/TruthAbtChina/status/1396605989189607424

 

[Cool Username]

I have nothing of value to say, except that I fucking hate chinks... and most south-east asian people. Which are, you know, the same shit as chinks, more or less.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Guess that explains stuff