geikei

China will not make a move on its own and that is their consistent position. They will attack if Taiwan makes a move unilaterally breaking the status quo. Not Pelosi visiting or some arm sale that will be delivered in 8 years and is half useless for Taiwans situation. But something like a constitution change,an independence announcement, a referendum announcement, or a move from taiwan to actualy form some military pact with someone or host us or other forces at significant scale.

xhs posting is getting a bit out of hand when you try to apply it in stuff like this. This is an open kinetic invasion or siege of Taiwan we are talking about. It will take 1-2 months at the absolute longest or it is already lost and if the Chinese begin it they wont stop midway and give up because "uhhh Local finance vehicles liquidity and dept issues 3 months from now or marginal oil shortages in trucking in like 6 months".

So the US plan is China's dream scenario ?Taiwan unilaterally initiating kinetic violence which does minimum to moderate damage , justifying an overwhelming Chinese response and annexation with way way less room for western allies or even the us to possibly assist Taiwan. Why would the US want to create a situation where if they dont act they lose Taiwan and as such begin the end of US power in east asia or if they do act they also probably still lose taiwan while losing a military conflict in Chinas backyard and accelerating their retreat from asia 100 fold. One has to believe either "chinas stuff dont work , us has special secret alien tech weapons" or "uhh Malacca Straight blockade checkmate" redditor analysis to make this be a gambit that makes sense. And every year that passes it becomes a worse gambit.

Sure you can say "US is an unhinged empire it will initiate into a suicidal conflict it will likely lose and destroy the world if its going bad to stop China from rising". But if thats true and the US is dead set at that there is nothing anyone, including China can do about it other than maximizing its military power in the context of a conflict with the US and allies (at best japan and phillipines, so just Japan) at its backyard. So that they take over taiwan quickly enough that thing is over before the US can do much and then dont have anything to fight china for or be dominant enough that a non completely insane administration just doesnt enter because it would mean humiliation.

Either way that entire scenario is ignoring the fact that China would learn about any of this the moment Taiwan does as well. The ROC military, intelligence service and politics are infiltrated by spies and sympathisers to a hillarious degree

Capacity, existing or installed, is different from the actual percentages of power generation by source. Fossil Fuels are ~64% of Chinas actual power generation atm, not 80

Predicting a bounce back GDP growth in the immediate post zero covid years of 7%+ is very different from predicting a sustained 8% growth for 20-40 years? In what page is the latter forecast made ?

i would be interested to see how and when and by who this "government expectation of 8% growth for the next 30 years" was formulated and endorsed. Because framing it as "this was the projection of the chinese government" carries an enormous amount of weight. Not some article or statement by whatever associated economist. The closest i found is this https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/incoming/adviser-reckons-china-can-achieve-constant-growth-8 from 2013 and it wasnt by someone too important and there was pushback against it even then .

China's growth was already slowly trending downwards and plateauing at 6% for an entire decade pre covid but the Chinese Government expected that the next 20-30 years would average 8% and where making their plans based on that? A number they didnt hit ONCE after Xi took over to begin with ?

KKE got a lot of hate and short term political consequences for refusing a chance to form a coalition with Syriza in the wake of the latter's rise. In the peak of political and economic crisis, with the far right quickly rising, being offered to be junior partner in government to a relatively radical in rhetoric Demsoc party that had its roots in communist movements, that had popular support to enact stuff and even break with the EU. One that just shattered a long standing PASOK-ND two party system.

Quite a deal right? You push the left government even further left. Have a chance at power and to lead a channel a popular movement. Get ministries etc. Most communist parties and a lot of people here even would probably think that as a good idea. The old CTH community surely thought so.

But the monolithic crank Stalinists in KKE said no way. That Syriza would enact neoliberalism and austerity just as obediently as any other bourgeois government. . That the "good intentions" without a guiding ideology and revolutionary theory and hold among the people would evaporate under the pressure of US and international capital and that in the end both Syriza, democratic socialism and the YES/NO referendum (for the EU deal/memorandum) Syriza paraded was false choice and an illusion and the result would be exactly the same. That Syriza and that movement cant stop and wont stop the rise of the far right. That KKE could never partake in such a farce, lose itself and its integrity in trying to navigate reformist incrementalism through power sharing under a capitalist government and then be punished for it. That they would be in the streets and in parliament against Syriza and their anti-worker policies just as they were against any other face capital puts.

Look i dont want to lionize the KKE that much. I wish they were better in a bunch of issues. But these are in hindsight obvious marxist and leninist analysis and strategy that people then and the left worldwide even now still cant get right and follow it up with a coherent strategy and message. KKE did because it is party with 100 year history that fought fascism, dictatorships, illegality, bled and was persecuted, ate shit in informing past popular fronts or coalitions, split and reformed. There is institutional experience, historical consiousness and deep theoretical vetting and programs from the lower to the highest tiers of party membership.

They were willing to stomach the pushback. Their numbers drop to their lowest just as Syriza was elected. They were hunted (and still are) by "you never want to govern, you only want to scream at the streets, you dont want power or have a plan for it" narratives . But just 10 years after they are in their strongest position in a while. And their own mistaken stances in some issues hold them back more. Sure they have some dumbass almost Maoist-Trot foreign policiy stances and they arent good in LGBT issues (though to be fair not in British communist tier) . But in a country where communists lost the civil war and were persecuted and illegal for decades, in a europe were anti-communism is going into another gear...a hard Marxist-Lennist party being at ~10% polling wise and having the more thorough and solid grassroots, neighbour and workplace organizing in the country is something that indicates that they have done a lot of things right. Things that communist parties in most of the west failed to do and that results in their current state or nonexistance. There are things to learn here for sure

I mean they didnt do everything right. They did very little right even from a demsoc prespective. They were principled and competent demsocs while campaigning and in power the principled wings in time split and the competency turned into them being competent executors of EU directives and neoliberal policy

One can lament and cry all day long about how they got into power at the worst possible momment and they had insurmountable dept and economy related problems to negotiate and resolve and the pressure was immense blah blah. But at the end of the day they caved to austerity and neoliberalism quickly and became obedient and effective enforcers of the EU, Troika etc anti-worker, anti-human even memorandum policies. Indistinguisable in most ways from PASOK and New Democracy governments.

Maybe it was naivity and idealism. Maybe they were unprepared of the relentlessness of international capital against them. But alas

Some answers here touch on some secondary reasons. But if you look at it closely, the reason the US (and the entire world) is dependent on China for rare earth elements is that ores with extractable concentrations are, in fact, rare and processing these ores into usable concentrates is, in fact, incredibly difficult and has advanced a lot in the last couple of decades and that advancement has come from China.

Most of said deposits are either in China or Myanmar (a country that the US simply can never pull away from china's influence no matter what they try).

The majority of the world’s rare earths are now processed in Baotou Inner Mongolia, largely using third-generation sulfuric acid roasting technology, having long ago abandoned polluting in-situ leaching.

But the most important point: Earth chemistry PhD programs are offered at many dozens of Chinese universities versus none in the US. China has produced over 50,000 rare earth patents in the past two decades versus a negligable number anywhere else. Almost all of the Cutting-edge science in the field is published in a handful of dedicated Chinese rare earth journals. The lead in scientific and industrial know how and R&D china has accumulated in the rare earth refinement and processing is greater than the lead it has in other high tech sectors it leads like batteries of telecoms or green energy.

China restricted rare earth exports to Japan over an East China Sea dispute. Japan went all balls investing in rare earths. Lynas and refiner in Malaysia. After 15 years they have made slow progress and still import like 60% of Light RE and lose to 95% of HRE from China. Now even that is probably stalling if they can’t buy Chinese equipment. And thats a remotely competent and industrial country like Japan. Not the US

like come on lmao

Vietnam is now more closely aligned to America in many ways than it is to China

This is either a decade plus out of date or taking "who do you like" public opinion polls as meaning a damm thing in geopolitics and foreign policy. Vietnam is closer to China than they have been in a long while. China friendly party wing has won out the struggle over the last 3-5 years. There is zero chance the US gets anything meaningful out of Vietnam in terms of China containment stuff in the near or medium term future

I am generaly a quite pro China guy around these parts but as a Greek here are some things to consider:

For one that this was basicaly the standard position on China for most (not in power) ML parties that didnt turn Eurocommunism or socdem (thus not caring of what is or isnt revisionism and socialism). Unironic Dengism in the sense of "this is actualy building socialism, stagism stuff etc" was almost non-existant as a position and argument in communism circles around the globe 10, 20 or 30 years ago and its relative spread recently tracks China's development and western decline more than any obvious qualitative changes in how chinese economic and productive relations are structured. KKE is a famously slow to adapt party even among communist parties (and that has played in their favor in some sense), no surprise if their position didnt meaninfully changed in a decade (since the most rapid and telling results and changes in Chinese socialism have been under Xi).

Secondly, is this even a KKE quote from some recent article or official analysis. I do know that their position is close to this sure, tho maybe not as harsh but it could be a quote from any random party newspaper article or geopol analysis from any time within the last 20 years. The idofcommunism tag is suspect. Thats a dude on twitter that reposts and pushes KKE stuff but isnt actualy a party member. The only thing i have found about him is that he was a candidate in local elections in the KKE aligned/front party. One of thousands. So i wouldnt be so sure thats some fresh KKE statement or official position iron out and published.

Another nuance is that some of the biggest labour fights and wins involving KKE lead unions and orgs were in disputes with Chinese (state owned even) companies and enterprises, primarily ones in Pireaus, like Cosco . With years of strikes and labour organizing led by KKE members, politicians and unions fighting various anti-union, anti-worker, low labour safety policies and conditions. Its easy for situations like these to reinforce a "China is capitalist and imperialist, no two ways about it and not that different from western capital" when the direct organizing experience involving Chinese capital wasnt that different.

As a last point ill just mention that i have had extensive conversations with high ranking KKE members and even ones in charge of foreign policy and geopolitical analysis. And despite criticism they have admitted positives and possibilities of the Chinese model from a socialist perspective despite retaining the main spirit of the above analysis. And i have heard admissions that "yeah if/when we come into power here in greece we have plans to expand our relations with China considerably and ways and party connections to do it, even if its out of geopolitical necessity". The last scenario is off course almost science fiction, albeit less so than in 95% of the western countries

History shows that socialist welfare is less than relevant so long as the state is capable of being subverted and all that work is capable of being undone. Most 20th century socialist states met all those qualities that give Maoists the starry-eyed glimmer, yet those states don't exist anymore. To assume that China can achieve that "socialism in one country" label and become "Fortress Communism" is frankly chauvinistic conceit that ignores the lessons provided by 20th century AES. It's equally non-dialectical to pull one's hair at China's socioeconomic condition without considering that China doesn't need to outdo itself, just others in relativistic terms. When the rest of the world is in the shitter, it’s unrealistic to expect China to wholly avoid getting some mud splashed on it. Europe and North America's economic conditions are far more dire than anything looming on China's horizon, which bears reminding.

Another thing that people should understand is that even if China went FULL Soviet right now, its welfare state redistributionary policies would be weaker for the average chinese compared to current euro social democracies, than where the USSR's stood compared to its contemporary social democracies. This may seem counterintuitive given the development in China but even now after all this absurd growth China is still lagging the US or advanced European countries in GDP per capita (PPP or not, wealth or income or not) comfortably more than whatthe USSR and other AES were lagging their contemporaries in most of the cold war. China being at ~ 40-60% of the way there vs 60-80% or above for the USSR in PPP terms. People should understand that you cant magically get the left end of the income distribution in a middle income country to attain welfare outcomes of a high income socdems country’s middle class with redistribution policy. At some point the numbers do matter and not neoliberalism to say that they will get there even under a socialist government by YoY progress relative to the rate of the country's development. And still healthcare access, affordability and quality for the average Chinese person and is comfortably better than any remotely comparable country in income/wealth per capita.

Looking at it from another angle to understand where CPC's focus were regarding welfare, during the GFC China was like was only 48% urbanized (versus 65% today). Would China have been better off focusing on building out a nordic level safety net for the better part of the last 10-20 years? Did the neolib CPC not want better healthcare for the masses and instead for whatever reason diverted resources to corrupt and inefficient state-owned construction companies? Of course not, its obvious that urbanization and massive infastructure building would achieve (and achieved) much more bang for the buck regarding welfare outcomes given just how rural China still was than trying to build an advanced social safety net at like 6k GDP per capita. Urban disposable income was over three times rural levels in 2008. No amount of redistribution could ever give households more spending power and better welfare outcomes than focusing in turning rural workers into urban ones and upgrading infastructure in rural and urban areas alike. And again China’s 65% urbanization today is where Japan, the EU and South Korea were in 1962, 1973 and 1985, respectively. Still ways to go . The welfare outcome juice left in urbanization and investment and infasrtucture building is still where the most potential is for China. China diverted most of its capital to manufacturing and infrastructure rather than welfare programs over the last 10-15 years not because they didnt want better welfare outcomes for households for but because that was and is still the best way to achieve them. And no neither China nor any other country at a similar level of development had and has enough capital, money and labour to focus on both these redistributive approches at remotely to the same degree

So in making sense of Chinese "welfare" focus and policies ppl have to recognize that these bigger increases in income and welfare outcomes came by funding infrastructure and keeping shit cheap (forcufully price wise or with supply & productivity rump up). Per capita production expansion did more than focusing on social safety net redistribution at China’s development level. Welfare redistribution can ease some hardships but it won’t integrate poorer regions and lower classes of a billion people into productive economic activity and high standards of living and ultimately you cannot support consumption of what you don’t make. If the pie isn’t big enough splitting it creatively won’t fill everyone. The vast majority of the country that would most benefit from income and wealth transfers need transfers of production factors first, not transfers of consumption.

So right now China is engaging in extensive redistribution from the rich to the poor. That redistribution comes in the form of state owned financial system taking capital gains from growth to try to build those production factors in the places where most low income people are. All the infastructure China has been purring money to without end in EVERY province and all the production and manufacturing power and "oversupply" keeping goods and services cheap IS redistributionary welfare policy, a much more effective one for China's strengths and levels of development at this point with much higher multipliers. It is the reason the average Chinese has seen their welfare get better much more so than any worker in any developing country. Its one of the more pro-social redistributive-oriented economic regimes the world has seen. Its pre-distributional vs post-distributional welfare economics. Capex socialism