• @lil_tank
    link
    English
    2011 months ago

    A bit too much market enthusiasm to my taste in this article, I prefer when the capitalist press is coping at the increased role of the state in the economy. Overall, this article clearly misattributed the success of China’s economy to the power of “free markets” while the truth is that without Party leadership they would be your typical over-exploited country

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      English
      1211 months ago

      I mean it is from NYT, so no surprise there. What I thought was interesting was the admission that the whole China is collapsing narrative is pure nonsense. A rare admission that things are going well in China from western MSM.

      • @lil_tank
        link
        English
        1411 months ago

        True, and the author is probably being called a tankie for that on Twitter lmao

    • @Spagetisprettygood
      link
      English
      1111 months ago

      Shrodingers china where it is simultaneously a free market and not a free market according to western propaganda

    • @201dberg
      link
      English
      911 months ago

      When things in a socialist country go well it’s because of magic free market. When things go bad it’s because ebil gommunism is bad.

      They cannot deviate from this course. They cannot allow any credit to socialism. If they did their articles would never get published and if THOSE did then writers would wind up fired and/or dead.

        • Parenti BotB
          link
          English
          911 months ago
          The quote

          In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

          – Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

          I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.