Over the last week, Sri Lanka has been hit by their worst national natural disaster since the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. Over 2 million people (about 10% of the population) were affected; the death toll is currently climbing past 600; nearly a hundred thousand homes have been damaged or destroyed, transport infrastructure is heavily damaged; industry has been damaged; and farmland has been flooded. The cost of damage so far looks to be about $7 billion, which is more than the combined budget spent on healthcare and education in Sri Lanka.
While there is plenty to say meteorologically about how this yet another concerning escalation as a result of climate change (Sri Lanka does experience cyclones, but they are usually significantly weaker than this), it's important to note that such disasters are, to at least a certain extent, able to warned about and their impacts somewhat mitigated. However, this requires both access to early detection and warning equipment, and an economy in which development is widespread - in this case, particularly in the construction of drainage systems and regulated construction, which has not generally occurred.
The IMF, on its 17th program with Sri Lanka, is doing its utmost to prevent such an economy from developing, as they instead promote reductions in public investment. On top of this, the rebuilding effort for Sri Lanka is already being planned and funded, and such donors include, of course, many Sri Lankan oligarchs, who will rebuild the damaged portions of the country yet further according to their visions, while sidelining the working class.
Perhaps neoliberalism's decay into its eventual death occurring concurrently into the gradual intensification of climate change and renewed wars signifies the rise of the era of disaster capitalism.
Last week's thread is here. The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel's destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
The summary for China’s Central Economic Work Conference this week can be found on a substack here with quite professional translation.
(Note: I don’t know anything about this substack (linked from Naked Capitalism) but the reporting on the CEWC seems accurate compared to the Chinese readouts. I’m just happy not having to do the translation myself this time).
As the summary says:
So, first, please don’t tell me that China has “no domestic consumption and oversupply problem”, which is a narrative perpetuated by many pro-China accounts on Twitter who don’t even live in China (a lot of them are overseas Chinese who live comfortably in New Zealand, Australia and the likes).
The Chinese government has fully acknowledged the adverse effects on the current state of its economy and has made it a priority to solve the problems.
The most important points are:
In other words, nothing really new here. From other reports, it looks like the 2026 goal is still to maintain a 5% GDP growth with 4% deficit (same as 2025), which in my opinion, is far too low to solve the low consumption problem caused by the massive wealth inequality.
Nothing about providing jobs guarantee (of which high youth unemployment is a real issue). It’s still mostly focusing on providing fiscal stimulus in necessary areas to help the private sector to create new jobs, rather than direct government intervention. The problem with this approach is that you need to have a lot of faith in the private sector to do the right thing, but that’s what the libs believe, I guess.
And obviously since the government is not inclined to run a high deficit, the already outsized debt burden in the private sector will continue to mount with little means to be alleviated.
Although the official policy will not be made until early next year, the CEWC pretty much sets the direction for what is to come, especially with the new Five-Year Plan about to commence.
Well, I understand your perspective. It is a problem in the sense that it's dragging down economic growth. However, for many people like me, who have lived nothing but the most utter and unfettered laissez-fair and austerity throughout their entire lives (I'm an almost 30 year-old Spaniard), the thought of a government acknowledging a problem, and at least taking half-correct measures like "tightening the belt" of party expenditure and loosening monetary policy, on top of continued growth of GDP, salaries and no inflation, is even hard to imagine.
I understand that, to you, many of those problems look unacceptable, and I too believe there are better solutions such as serious state intervention through "guaranteed jobs" policy, but being used to 25% of youth unemployment, to ever-shrinking purchase power, and the constant degradation of the welfare state, the Chinese state policy looks like a dream.
Appreciate your perspective. I don’t disagree that the Chinese leadership is a lot more competent than the many Western governments, especially when it comes to macro policy adjustments (though there are many long-standing corruption problems that have festered deep inside the bureaucracy in spite of 10 years of anti-corruption campaign).
However, the major contention here is whether socialism can be achieved through neoliberal principles, which is exactly what China is practicing right now.
There is no economic constraint in China today other than a blind belief in neoliberalism that says the government cannot institute full employment program, raise the wages of the people, provide welfare and healthcare etc. especially to the 600 million people (mostly rural population) who received the short end of the stick with the reform and opening up. Now that the economy is going into downturn, it is the rural population and the Tier 3/4 and below cities that will bear the most burden as the country prioritizes recovery in the Tier 1/2 cities. So, remember this every time you hear that “China has alleviated millions out of poverty”, because that came from a very specific phase of economic development in the 2000s-2010s.
This is not to say Deng’s reform era is not useful. The USSR needed the NEP to stabilize its post-revolution economy, but you also cannot possibly believe that the USSR could have emerged as a socialist superpower had Stalin not transitioned away from the NEP into the Five-Year Plan in 1929?
What I am saying here is that China’s neoliberal phase was already over 10 years ago and the time to transition is not a few years from now, not even today, it should have been yesterday.
In my view, China really lost the golden opportunity to transition its economy in the mid-2010s, when the economic trajectory was still very much in the upswing. The government’s attitude to curbing property prices was half-hearted to begin with (because it was delivering the big GDP numbers), and so the situation was allowed to go out of control. The vibes back in 2017-2019 were completely different than they are today, when nobody had to worry about unemployment. You have to see it to believe it.
What you’re seeing in China today is really the outcome of an ongoing over-investment phase that should have stopped 10 years ago, back in the mid-2010s. This is why you’re seeing such dissonance in China today - on the one hand, great infrastructure, on the other, unemployment and wage stagnation. Because the local governments have taken out so much debt for the infrastructure building that with the current deflation, it has become very difficult to service. As a result, the local governments delay wages and payments, and has begun to institute austerity (or at least raising prices of public services).
I know Westerners cannot comprehend what over-investment in infrastructure means. It looks very shiny with the latest model of high speed rails and the most advanced urban technologies. But remember that these all require constant maintenance, which costs money and effort (and therefore, labor and resource allocation), and as the government subsidies become less and less during an economic downturn, as we are experiencing today, the upkeep of these infrastructure is placing a lot of financial strain on the local governments. In fact, the central government has already denied new cities from building subway systems since 2021 (we have 54 cities with subways so far) because the over-investment strategy to drive GDP numbers was already seeing diminishing returns. The quality of service and the state of maintenance will only degrade if the local governments cannot improve their financial situation.
On the other hand, if the country had begun its transition towards domestic consumption a decade ago, you would still see the infrastructure building AND the job opportunities and continued growth today. That’s the point I have been trying to drive across.
Finally, nobody could have foreseen the COVID pandemic. I am not conspiratorially minded, but let’s just say that the US got really really lucky with COVID when it comes to China’s economy. The whole investment gambit could have possibly worked for a few more years, but COVID really put a fast deceleration brake on China’s economy abruptly and with export-driven and investment-driven growth fading, the deep inequalities that had been obfuscated due to the prior fast growing periods have now started to manifest themselves in the form of low domestic consumption. Exactly what China needed today to save itself. Ironic, huh?
I fully agree with your macroeconomic analysis, and I'm an avid supporter of planned economies. Markets are an outdated tool now that we have modern computational capabilities, and a transition towards 100% publicly owned economy is completely feasible and desirable thing.
Not xhs but the thing is, planned economies don't exclude markets, and markets themselves have existed in pretty much every economy (you could only say the incas didn't have one, for example). Markets exist so that we are able to exchange qualitatively different concrete labor in terms of an abstract, quantitatively commensurable socialized labor. The Soviet Union was certainly a market economy, and Stalin even rants on trots wanting to abolish markets before the necessary development of the productive forces, only being possible when the amount of labor it takes to realize any commodity is rather negligible. Markets certainly have a use as a developer of these forces, where firms with higher organic composition of capital outcompete those who have less. Centralization of the productive forces, the primary goal of the lower stage of communism, is simply the logical conclusion of this advance in efficiency of organization.
Markets as in "free" markets are certainly outdated, although I would rather use the term unrestricted markets. Private competition but also private investment is just plain dumb, private individuals being able to invest unfathomable quantities of money without even the possibility of rational decision-making. Even if they did have such a possibility, it would simply be way more efficient for the state to take on the responsibilities of this investment, having centralized all information gathering upon itself, and able to take account of the economy as a whole as well as the prospects of the future.
Hmmm, not sure I agree with your definition of market. In what sense was there a market economy in the post-NEP USSR, if production quantities, prices, and allocation of goods were given not by converging priced in markets but by centrally planned decisions?
I agree that markets historically have been used for that, but they only ever served as an approximation. Nowadays we have technology enabling us to directly measure the total amounts of quantified labor that goes into each good or service produced, so the information can be collected to almost perfection and used on an economic plan without the need for a market.
I mean, as a place where commodity exchange simply happens, I would say it fits the definition perfectly well.
Well, back in the middle ages, demand of an individual was much more closely correlated with their production, as they mostly produced what they directly consumed through agriculture. With capitalism, and participation in a market, that consumption has been largely abstracted. I think in this way, the market is nicely suited to accommodating the needs of an individual in the particular, where they can raise prices if there is a great amount of demand for a certain commodity. Which is obviously not to say that there isn't a need for generally calculating market values and regulating the market itself with them. The soviets had exactly this problem, where shortages occurred if there was a major difference in production and consumption.
It didn't, though? The USSR didn't have commodity production. The prices of goods weren't determined by markets, they were centrally decided as a political decision. Production wasn't guided by profit motive of capitalist owners, it was centrally decided as a political decision. Without surplus value, there is no commodity.
Shortages in the USSR were mostly by design, not by "lack of information in supply-side". Capitalist economies are so-called "surplus economies", meaning that capitalist firms typically operate at less than full production (except in situations of physical or political reasons for shortages) because, since there is a wide availability of unemployed labor, and they don't produce more because there's not enough demand for their products (hence advertising). This is because demand is capped by the private sector's wealth/income, which is the main limit to consumption in capitalism. There are no shortages of, say, cars, because if the demand for the cars goes high enough, you either raise the prices as a company or you produce more by employing more labor.
The Soviet Union was a so-called "shortage economy". They ran a full-employment, self-suficient economy, and so the number of total goods put into the economy was limited not by consumption, but by actual inability to put more people to work because there are literally no more people to employ. Since the allocation of production was a political decision, and production was limited, there will always be shortages. The economy has labor and capital to produce, say, 10 tons of steel and 10 tons of cloth. Producing 11 tons of steel requires that you reduce the production of cloth, because you need to reallocate labor or capital. Now, imagine people demand 10 tons of cloth and 15 tonnes of steel at current prices. You have two politically different choices: you raise the prices of cars until the demand is lowered to 10 tonnes, or you just allow for a shortage and allocate cars based on waiting lists or merits. The first decision allocates the goods by level of income/wealth, the second decision allocates based on randomness/merit.
Furthermore, even if what you said were true about shortages in the USSR being caused by lack of information between supply and demand: this problem has been solved by technology years ago, and is actually already implemented in market economies, but to the benefit of capitalists and not the people. When you click "purchase" on and item online or you scan an item's barcode at a supermarket, not only does the reseller immediately get the information of what you purchased and which warehouse it comes from. They also add the item to a list of backorder, and their regional distributor gets notified, and in turn the distributor notifies the producer. This happens instantaneously through the internet, not anymore through "market and price signals" as upheld by right-wing economists from the Austrian school or neoliberals. This is actually one of the main reasons why Amazon and Walmart can destroy other businesses and their model has imposed itself over time, because they don't rely on markets anymore with their distributors, they have enough economic power to force their distributors to act according to their own volitions instantly, as dictated by company policy coming from the top.
This can be just as easily implemented in a socialist economy without commodity production, to enable instant knowledge of supply and demand on an economy-wide level. It would actually likely lead to unseen levels of efficiency in labor usage.
I would agree that China's current economic policies are not necessarily intended to achieve socialism. I believe it's because geopolitical concerns come first and foremost. What good is socialism if it is suffocated in the cradle by external forces?
China needs to guarantee the security of the state before they can even begin to think of a serious economic transition. Looking at it through that lens, I think China's policies make sense.
Why does the US struggle to keep up with China's military buildup? Partially due to their consumption-focused economy.
Actually, it’s the contrary. The current system relies extensively on dollar hegemony, where the US provides a huge consumer market to sustain China’s outsized productive capacity. And as you can see that the investment-led growth phase is winding down, it paradoxically drives China to become even more reliant on its export market since the domestic consumer market has failed to absorb its own production.
Therefore, we see record China’s trade surplus of $1 trillion for the last couple of years - the reason is simple: in order to keep up the same level of growth, but without investment and domestic consumption, the export sector has to make up for it in order to keep the workers employed and the industries running. As the US ramps up its sanctions, China has no choice but to dump its goods in other countries, in order to save its own economy.
Meanwhile, Chinese workers receive no real benefit in return, because these are surplus dollar is simply a number in the bank account, and is not used for importing goods and services that can improve lives of the Chinese workers. In fact, all of that $1 trillion surplus shipment of goods can sink in the sea during transport and nothing changes financially for China - so what’s the point of accumulating those dollars to begin with, which required real labor and resources that could have been allocated for other parts of the domestic economy?
Finally, there is nothing - no real constraints - that stops China from providing full employment for its people, raising wages, while performing its military buildup. What is constraining China’s economic policy is its adherence to Western neoclassical theories (which provide justification for neoliberalism). You cannot convince me that China’s economy today cannot provide what the USSR (a far weaker economy) could easily provide for its own people decades ago?
This is the fundamental difference between China’s reform era and the Soviet economy. The USSR focused on building a workers’ state where their rights are fully protected. The industrialization and the technological advancements came as a product of this new system. Of course, the USSR was not a paradise and they have corruption problems of their own, but one cannot deny that wealth inequality in the USSR was amongst the lowest in the world. In fact, pension and free public services in the USSR never stopped even during the Great Patriotic War from 1941-1945, as millions of people were killed and its economy greatly disrupted.
China’s post-reform era is very different, and followed much closer to the Japan and South Korea’s model. As Deng Xiaoping himself said, we have to let a small bunch of people to get rich first. Black cats, white cats, it doesn’t matter. Well, it’s been 50 years, I think we are overdue for addressing the massive wealth inequality issue - which, as I have pointed out, is exactly causing the low domestic consumption.
As for the US, who says the US consumption-based economy is what’s causing its deindustrialization and its poor military buildup? These are policy choices.
The US, of course, can do all of them. But the problem with re-industrialization is the re-proletarianization of the US working class, who will have the leverage to challenge the capitalist class at home. This, the bourgeoisie cannot allow. Besides, industrial capital threatens the profitability of Wall Street finance capital. This is a contradiction of US hyper-financialized capitalism, not a real constraint.
Similarly, the financialization (grifting) of US military industrial complex came after the collapse of the USSR, when during the 1990s there were no longer credible threats to the US military hegemony. To sustain the profitability of the MIC, grifting had to take place to allow the money to flow into the defense contractors. The Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merging in the 1990s was a prime example of this. This has more to do with Wall Street finance capitalism than a domestic consumption-led economy problem.
The Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 programme also played a huge part here. There were three main entrants with three different concepts for a supersonic short/vertical take off and landing stealth aircraft, Lockheed's (which we know today as the F-35), McDonnell Douglas', and Boeing's. Lockheed's concept with the shaft driven lift fan was in the lead, so Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were competing for who would go up against Lockheed. They had an agreement between themselves that whoever lost, would sell their company to the winner in a merger. McDonnell Douglas lost vs Boeing, Boeing was selected to go up against Lockheed. Thus Boeing absorbed McDonell Douglas.
McDonnell Douglas lost because they initially tried to drive a lift fan in the front with excess gas from the engine. This failed, and McDonnell Douglas decided to switch to seperate lift engines, like the Yak-141. The US Marines, who required the short/vertical take off and landing capabilities, hated the idea of seperate lift engines in the front. Meanwhile Boeing basically built a stealth supersonic Harrier. The Marines much preferred that vs having seperate lift engines in the front. So Boeing won vs McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas ignoring the US Marines ended up being a huge mistake, it was one of the reasons that they lost their entire company to Boeing.
Great video on this, I've timestamped it to the relevant point
Boeing would end up losing to Lockheed in the end as we all know, the Lockheed prototype displayed very good flight performance. Lockheed demonstrated the ability to refuel in mid air, perform a short take off, supersonic flight and vertical landing all in one, and a cross country flight across the USA. Boeing's concept could do none of that in the concept/prototype stage.
The full video is also a great explanation on the history of the whole programme.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
So the next 5YP seems like mostly more of the same, from what we've seen. It might make marginal improvements to these problems, but by not transitioning further into socialism, it's not going to resolve the big contractions in Chinese society.
So what's the path forward? The current party leadership is stuck in an mindset that was once useful but is now unproductive. I wrote a comment the other day about how Youth Maoism might feed into process. But I'm curious what you see as the way to actually get the PRC on track. Does the current generation of leadership with their roots in the the cultural revolution and R&OU need to die off? Can China's democratic mechanisms that ate so effective at local decision-making push the central government to change course? Does there need to be some kind of big economic crash? The PRC is better avoiding those than any government ever.
What can be done besides just hoping the leadership changes their analysis?
I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? The worst for China is probably become like Japan (unthinkable just a few years ago if you ask me, but COVID changed everything), with a couple decades of stagnation. Wealth inequality will deepen but it’s not like China is going to “collapse” as some people are obsessed with. It is a world superpower after all.
I think people are scarred by the USSR collapsing but remember that it was a voluntary dissolution - if Gorbachev had wanted to carry the USSR in a decaying state for a few more decades, it was totally doable. As long as the ruling political regime wants to keep going, I don’t see there is any way for a developed economy to collapse. The countries that collapsed happen under the conditions of their productive capacities being destroyed.
I wouldn’t put much stock in the youth Maoism thing. It was a collective outburst of emotion on the internet (much like Americans protesting about Trump on the internet), but the Chinese government has a lot of tools to keep things under control. They control the algorithms after all.
What I am worried about the most are the Global South countries. Like it or not, China is a superpower and its policy will affect the rest of the world. Even China’s non-intervention will deeply affect the Global South. We’re already seeing Mexico (the 8th largest car manufacturing country in the world) putting up 50% tariffs against China, and the EU crying about trade imbalance with China. This shows that the world is close to its limits for absorbing China’s exports. The loss of consumer market in the US cannot simply magically re-appear elsewhere - someone has to be willing to run the deficit to absorb the global export surplus goods, which nobody is willing to do.
CADTM made a report about the BRICS Summit at Rio this year titled The BRICS are the new defenders of free trade, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank:
So, BRICS will continue to defend neoliberal free trade. No new alternative economic doctrine has emerged.
This is also why I have to remind everyone that the Ukraine war that caused the US sanction on Russia’s foreign reserves and the Biden rate hike in response to inflation after the oil and gas supply was disrupted, was a very very special period in the post-90s world. There was a lot of potential to break the dollar hegemony, for the dollar liquidity shortage across the world was seriously driving many countries to look for alternatives. This was why BRICS came to the spotlight in 2022. Unfortunately that window of opportunity is mostly gone.
I don’t know what we’re going to see next. The next US economy crash isn’t going to be pretty (e.g. the AI bubble bursting), because remember that last time China saved the world by going into the infrastructure investment that drove the construction and raw material sectors. This time, even China does not have that capacity anymore, so there is little to no mitigation when the US inevitably exports its unemployment to the rest of the world, just like the 2008 GFC.
It is only now that you learn to appreciate why China’s domestic market can save the world.
If I'm being charitable and to China and the CPC I am, this would be in my mind a big concern. The moment the west is economically decoupled from you is the moment they can afford to do ANYTHING. From yes sanctions and blockades and conflicts to prevent you from selling to other markets like Europe, MENA, Africa, Latin/South America, Asian vassals, etc that strangle you and isolate you from the world like the USSR to truly violent and desperate acts like using nuclear weapons because there are no economic concerns. I think there may be those in the CPC who view the US with incredible concern as a deranged, violent maniac that only isn't attacking them viciously on multiple fronts because of their intertwined dependency. So the thinking goes you can't transition to socialism YET because doing that will scare off the capitalists, result in de-coupling, re-shoring (not necessarily to US but India for example) and result in a conflict. Better to bide your strength as long as you can and when the moment comes be as strong as you can be with people, industry, tech as advanced and built as you can reasonably make it so you hit the ground on the new cold war conflict running.
The problem with this type of thinking and planning of course is you risk having types who constantly make excuses for why now is not the right time even when it is, who resist change because they're risk averse or genuinely liberal thinking and enjoy all this private enterprise and capitalist market economy mode. So you have a risk of not striking at the ideal time and of rot setting in as well as of course the cost born by the Chinese people in situations of economic decline where rather than going the state planning route harder to alleviate that you believe they just have to endure it for the sake of "the plan". I am hopeful that China is just waiting until 2030 as their plans state and at that point having accumulated as much as they can in the interim and remaining as entangled with the west as they can economically they'll begin to change things around. But it's a real danger. It's playing with fire because it gives liberal-roaders, revisionists and opportunists opportunities to put a socialist sounding logical spin on their desires to keep things free market. And as others note deeper in this thread there's a real risk they can push for delays if economic stagnation occurs and they can say "we need more time to build up, just another 10 years, just let us clear this stagnation, we need to open up more" and that can lead to even worse things like the kind of decay and rot that claimed the USSR. They need very steady hands at the very top for the next 5 years at least.
There's a real risk of hesitancy because of how the US has set up dominoes to strangle the B&R for example so I hope 2030 is set in stone as far as possible because by then China's military will be reasonably modernized, enough to likely stand up to the US very effectively, a lot of tech will have caught up, independence on semi-conductors could be a reality, etc.