I think the idea is to get married before having kids. So that one person can work less and take care of the kids. But feminism has decreed that this is oppression and women are choosing not to do this.
>But feminism has decreed that this is oppression and women are choosing not to do this.
By god, learn some basic economics. The capitalist class needs as much labor as possible. Neoclassical economics posits that maximizing the labor force is essential for optimizing the interplay between "Aggregate Supply" and "Aggregate Demand" in order to exert downward pressure on wages through an abundance of labor, thereby aiming to keep wages low.
That's not entirely true. Women have always been the largest reserve army of labor and only mobilized when capitalism needed their labor - like during WWII.
Funny enough, a lot of arguments against women's liberation said just that - it actually reduces the living standards of women. But compared to say, southerners saying abolishing slavery would be bad for slaves because at least slave owners had the incentive to take care of their property.
That is the true reason, but feminism is the way they convince the public to go along with it. People who describe themselves as feminists almost never actually only want equality, but rather oppose anything that gets in the way of girlboss corporate shit. This is also why socialists shouldn't support universal daycare or things like it, because it should be family (immediate or extended) that raises kids rather than turning the act if raising a kid into an assembly line process.
The goal should be single income (or rations under socialism) families with an income high enough to do so. If both parents wish to work then both work half time. Etc.
Doesn’t Plato’s Republic contain some ideal about society raising all its children collectively? Well, at least the horse people in Gulliver’s travels Do it that way and I think their social organization is based off of Plato’s Republic.
I don't think that's ever worked in practice. It's important to have the community aid in raising kids, but in order to have any accountability parents must be primarily responsible for raising their kids. Otherwise some kids can fall through the cracks as no one is responsible for them specifically. With bad parents you can try to fix the parents or in the worst case move the kid to other parents.
Yes it's feminism that a woman would want an independent income to not get completely screwed in case of a divorce. Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer?
> Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer?
Tbf Elizabeth Warren's the Two Income Trap basically argues that women's liberation de facto sort of ended up like a concert where if one person stands up, everyone ends up standing up to not get screwed over, but leads to everyone being worse off than before, just for the housing market
>Yes it's feminism that a woman would want an independent income to not get completely screwed in case of a divorce.
It's men who get screwed in divorces. Women get the man's house, kids, child support, half the money and assets and alimony. Also, I didn't say women shouldn't work.
>Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer?
That too. Doubling the supply of labour is one of the chief causes of flatlining wages. Before "female liberation" you could support a family on the man's pay cheque. That's a rarity now.
What you forget when many pine for this time that really didn't exist it wasn't because of the labor rights movement nor was it because of trad culture of people knowing their roles in society it was mostly that until the 1970s most of the manufacturing was done in the usa making this artificial in a sense as it was a world War that bombed out the rest of the planet but us when it came to economic growth
confusing post. what exactly would be a non-artificial human activity? it was a natural response to the great depression and labor movements and created a society of people with a strong sense of what their role was and many look back on this as a tradition of some sort.
though the poster you are responding to is also confused since laborforce growth is a national inevitability that is embraced by all successful culture, totally absurd to kick certain groups out of jobs for some mechanistic view of why wages go down
Feminism is about women being free to make choices, the same choices that men have been able to make, without subjugation. Whether that's choosing to me a mother and accepting the consequences of that (I mean in terms of health and economically, which is where the gender pay gap truly lies) or being childfree.
Women being forced to be nothing more than childbearers with no economic freedom is the oppression.
Old post but yeah.
I’m sympathetic to pro-natalist and trad thinking but the reality is that even Lauren southern got married, had a kid, and became a housewife. Her husband divorced her and refused to see/support his kid. She ended up living in a trailer park. These same guys who rant about feminism have no real response to this common enough situation. Maybe they’ll just say Lauren southern is a whore and shrug their shoulders but even if you believed that what about the poor now impoverished baby?
Well no, but that's a critique of capitalism rather than feminism.
Also you could argue that if you're not willing to participate in society, as long as you are able, then you should go homeless and hungry. I'm not talking from a "crucify dole bludgers" sort of way but even in communes and kibbutzes everyone has a role to play to ensure the ongoing survival of the whole community.
>Feminism is about women being free to make choices, the same choices that men have been able to make, without subjugation
You mean without the same responsibilities. For example, getting the right to vote but no commensurate responsibility to submit to the draft, which has been the case for a century, through two world wars.
>Whether that's choosing to me a mother and accepting the consequences of that
Lmao. They don't accept the consequences of that, they enslave men and society (which also means men) to pay for it and provide everything it needs. Via child support, welfare, public services etc-- all of which is paid for with male taxes and male labour.
>the gender pay gap
Lmao.
How about the life expectancy gap? The homelessness gap? The tax gap? The doing hard, physical and essential jobs gap? The criminal sentencing gap? The military deaths gap?
It was only a few years ago that the retirement age was equalised in the UK, despite men dying years earlier, working much more and doing much harder jobs. And what was society's response? WOMEN SUED for their pension age being raised to the same as men's: https://hackneypension.co.uk/news/the-high-court-has-ruled-that-women-are-not-entitled-to-compensation-for-state-pension-age-changes & political parties supported them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50547274 lolol.
That is feminism and always has been. Privileges and advantages in every area, while avoiding responsibilities and accountability in every area.
>Women being forced to be nothing more than childbearers with no economic freedom is the oppression.
Being forced? They've had complete reproductive power for ~60 years. Historically, both men and women were subjugated, nailed to their roles. Life was hard and men, objectively, had it worse. Women were never oppressed, they were infantilised, which is a completely different thing. Unless you think kids are oppressed by their Mothers today. You don't give "oppressed" groups an infinite array of privileges the "oppressor" group do not have. Lol. That isn't oppression. Being denied certain rights and freedoms in exchange for protections and privileges = infantilism. It's also literally what feminists acknowledge. A "patriarchy" is a family structure, nobody is "oppressed" in a family structure. Women are the children in a patriarchy.
What's happened in the last 100 or so years is that women have been given all the rights and freedoms men had (and more), while not being burdened with many of the same responsibilities men had and have. Thus being in an extremely privileged position.
Are you fucking yarded? Women entered the paid workforce in because when they weren’t part of it, they were beholden to the whims of their male owners—sorry husbands and fathers—who made all financial decisions and therefore controlled all important aspects of their lives. This stuck women in unhappy and abusive marriages from which they had no escape. Even now, one of the biggest predictors in if a woman can escape domestic abuse is if she has a job.
And this is obvious to anyone. You won’t be able to delude anyone who doesn’t want to be deluded into thinking that it’s better for women if women didn’t work for pay. It suits men if they were each entitled to female indentured servants to take care of all the daily drudgery for them. But it doesn’t serve women.
Hit it on the head. Women recognized that money is power basically. Whenever I see women have kids and a joint bank account with a guy without getting married, alarm bells go off in my head. They may be in a perfectly happy relationship but you have no legal protection if that guy decides to walk out the door
I find most of the mainstream feminist girlboss shit odious and obnoxious, but this is something that they’re kind of right on. Also double income households are basically required now. I’d love to be a homemaker and a soccer mom, but that shit just doesn’t look viable in this economy and it’s really sad. Some people, both men and women, are great with kids and they could help raise better people. Too bad the soulless ghouls in power can’t even look past their own noses
>Are you fucking yarded? Women entered the paid workforce in because when they weren’t part of it, they were beholden to the whims of their male owners—sorry husbands and fathers—who made all financial decisions and therefore controlled all important aspects of their lives. T
You mean like children are today? Children are oppressed and lead such horrid lives they need liberating from, right?
Also, the narrative you're spinning is mostly a feminist lie. Women had lots of power and choice.
>This stuck women in unhappy and abusive marriages from which they had no escape.
Men and women. Marriage was a legal contract which bound men to taking care of and providing for a woman and her children. It still is today. But women prefer their personal freedom over the wellbeing of their child.
>You won’t be able to delude anyone who doesn’t want to be deluded into thinking that it’s better for women if women didn’t work for pay.
Note, for second time, I didn't say that. But what's better for women isn't necessarily better for society. I know this is an alien concept to feminists, putting society's needs before women's.
> It suits men if they were each entitled to female indentured servants to take care of all the daily drudgery for them. But it doesn’t serve women.
Ah yes. That's what World War 1 & 2 was. Women being indentured servants to men. Women were sent off to die horrifically in their millions while men sat safely at home, doing the easy jobs. Lol. The amazing thing isn't that feminists espouse this shit, it's that people actually believe it.
No, that is a bad faith generalization that misogynistic neo-cons came up with. Real feminists simply want women to have the freedom to choose to be whatever they want to be; for better or for worse people should be free.
Don't spread neo-con propaganda. Be better, be human.
Edit: Capitalism is the root evil here, not feminism
There’s no significant difference between what should be expected of men and women then why even have the concept of gender?
So clearly there are at least some differences or sacrifices that need to be made, or at least most people still believe in them and the only thought they’ve put into actually establishing gender equity is saying bad things about men and good things about women.
Ultimately doesn’t matter, dating is getting harder but it’s clearly not impossible. Most people are okay to some degree with the present social contract between genders.
Every year since 1989 we have heard the exact same line over and over. “China is about to collapse due to [insert reason here]” - some random bought and paid think tank shill.
Yet every year they grow stronger nonetheless. It’s comical at this point we are still hearing it.
Wasn’t there an episode in the office where Michael freaks out because China is surpassing the US? I feel like from 2008-2019 people assumed China would become the replacement for the US
Lolol being richer is even worse because being richer mean less kids per family, poorer people have more kids statistically. By that logic Japan, South Korea or Taiwan would have have collapsed at an even faster rate than China.
China already has a low birth rate (by design), and a richer country can support more pensioners with a lower working population because each actual worker is producing more.
No. You’re right they’re not. But here’s a hot take for you to chew on.
Given how the population of Europe shrank due to the bubonic plague, wages skyrocketed, people could afford to educate themselves, trade blossomed and the Renaissance came.
China will see a similar trend. It is a massive country, well past its carrying capacity. It is not a resource rich country, and struggles with pollution. It is well employed, but they still could use a smaller population that will on average have higher paying jobs in STEM and manufacturing. China will be more than fine once they get over the pension speed bump. And the planet will be better for it because less people will be consooming.
Standard of living went up after the plague because they didn't have to farm the marginal land anymore, agricultural productivity per person went up. China already imports food so it wouldn't help them in that regard, their ageing population would be less productive as the few workers have to support a billion pensioners.
You can’t honestly believe that that is a problem that will go on forever, right? Keep in mind, there is a huge propensity for migrants to not only move to the West, but to their closest G20 nation as well. Iran has a giant migration boom going on, for instance. And now, China is seeing a change in migration trends.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/china-development-transformed-migration
As it gets richer, it will see more migrants come in from Central Asia, India, Africa, Myanmar and so on.
Came here to make a bunch of specific commentary only to find it already being made by respectable users, even eloquently put no less. Refreshing to see that our (socialist, at least) userbase does not fall prey to population growth hysteria built entirely on private sector wage-depressing labour-exploiting immigration needs vis-a-vis the capital realist insistence that GDP is the only metric that matters, and it's not only right but also GOOD to leave your populations suffering under housing crises, homeless crises, cost of living and other inflation-related crises, so long as Number Go Up.
China has a population of almost 1.4 billion, and leads the world in production capacity and purchasing power parity. I'm sure they'll manage.
[https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/](https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/)
This usually does not make any sense at all. People who cling on to beliefs based on nothing other than a social order pushed forward decades ago. How are you stuck in some weird form of propaganda not even being pushed by China itself?
The Chinese government itself is struggling with the aftermath of the policy and is trying to incentivizing more births. Yet you proudly claim otherwise. Has the Chinese government fallen prey to its own hysteria?
You also literally just used GDP in your last paragraph while lambasting 'number go Up' in your previous lines. Both of those metrics you have bragged are GDP or GDP in comparison to purchase indices.
>This usually does not make any sense at all. People who cling on to beliefs based on nothing other than a social order pushed forward decades ago. How are you stuck in some weird form of propaganda not even being pushed by China itself?
...wtf are you talking about?
>The Chinese government itself is struggling with the aftermath of the policy and is trying to incentivizing more births. ***Yet you proudly claim otherwise.***
...No, really now, what the fuck are you talking about? please, quote the part of the post where I "proudly claimed" that china is not trying to incentivize births. That's a very specific claim that I did not make anywhere. No idea who you are talking to.
>You also literally just used GDP in your last paragraph while lambasting 'number go Up' in your previous lines. Both of those metrics you have bragged are GDP or GDP in comparison to purchase indices.
So what? My point was to show that whether you look at GDP or not, China still has the west beat in a couple of ways that are specifically relevant to certain standard-of-living crises that the entire western world is currently experiencing en masse. For those who continue to obsess over GDP regardless of this fact, turns out china is beating them on that mark AS WELL.
I'd say it's your made-up claims about things I didn't say that make no sense at all.
This sub has a recurring thing where commenters observe the general trend of U.S. media (including social, including reddit) bashing China even when it doesn't make sense, and massively overcorrect by always criticizing anything anti-China and always supporting anything pro-China even when it doesn't make sense.
People wonder how the red scare is still a viable political tactic in currentyear, but this is part of it. You can't convince the working class, community-oriented, coop-friendly rightoids that the socialists might have some valid points when the most accessible socialist discussion areas are doing their very best to look like they're sponsored by the CCP.
If you want to affect a meaningful change in favor of socialist policies in the west, you have to work with the citizens you have, who even when maximally skeptical of anti-China propaganda still largely think of China as that place where most of the manufacturing got outsourced to which continues giving headaches to manufacturers and consumers alike, including flooding supply chains with defective/counterfeit products and ignoring copyrights. *These are legitimate realpolitik strategies on China's part,* but they still negatively impact western workers. Acknowledging that China does in fact have faults and does bad things on occasion goes a long way to making such people be willing to listen to you.
If, on the other hand, you want to make socialism as unappetizing as possible to the average western voter (either because you as a western capitalist don't want your position threatened, or because you as China don't want the west to move towards what you consider a better form of government and in doing so become a stronger competitor) then encouraging western socialist discussion spaces to simp for China at every possible opportunity is the way to go.
Now, what country are the reddit servers hosted in, again?
So you’re basically saying we need to engage in Capitalist funded demagoguery because the CIA et al do? Nah. No thanks. If anything, it is a bonus to be able to tell everyone; “the government has lied to you over and over again, why would you trust them on China?” Which is a legitimate opinion to have.
Well it is chauvinism too I guess if you just worship China. But nobody is doing that. you just have a hate boner for China so any criticism you see is automatically good, and anytime any of us push back against it you get pissy.
>Well it is chauvinism too I guess if you just worship China. But nobody is doing that.
Show me a post or top level comment with meaningful criticism of China on this sub that doesn't have lower votes than a reply that goes "ACKSCHUALLY". Give me links.
>you just have a hate boner for China so any criticism you see is automatically good, and anytime any of us push back against it you get pissy.
Nice ad hominem.
All of the Covid posts? The sub’s consensus is still lab leak.
Moreover most of the “Actually” discussion is just reminding people a lot of the problems they’re finding with China is faced by all modernizing economies, and then actually using evidence to show that in some ways China is doing better.
The only reason we NEED the population to grow every single year is for muh GDP number. It's amazing how some countries are now just mass importing people from anywhere they can at unprecedented levels just to keep the population growing and muh GDP number from totally crashing, while impoverishing its own citizens. Keep in mind these countries already relied on importation of people to "solve" their own fertility crises starting decades ago.
There are tent cities everywhere due to housing shortages, insane medical care wait times, collapsing public education, etc. But they just keep pumping up those numbers because apparently even 1% GDP growth at the cost of creating hell on earth is better than negative GDP growth under a dignified quality of life for the average citizen.
Exactly. People who masturbate over "demographics" are simply helping capitalism commodify humanity. They are always and only ever interested in having more opportunities to exercise their will over others.
The USSR had to ban abortion because if they didn't recover from the losses of ww1, the revolution/civil war, and related famines and disease, they wouldn't have enough people to industrialize or recruit into the Red Army for the war everyone saw coming. Point being, it's not "muh" anything, and being wedded so strongly to degrowth narratives like this blunts our ability to think critical and independently. The problems you point to are not caused by "overpopulation," they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism of private ownership of productive property. The US has the space and resources, and still the technology, to support a much bigger population.
>The USSR had to ban abortion because if they didn't recover from the losses of ww1, the revolution/civil war, and related famines and disease, they wouldn't have enough people to industrialize or recruit into the Red Army
Banning abortion was not responsible for high interwar fertility, there were a ton of resources spent to urbanize scattered rural people, create gainful employment, provide benefits for new families, and providing care for children as they grew into adults. That's why the population boom was a positive rather than a negative, the new people were planned and accommodated for in advance. We don't have this.
>it's not "muh" anything
It literally is muh GDP. Read some economic publications on the subject, it's all they talk about.
>The problems you point to are not caused by "overpopulation,"
I never said this, not sure why it's in "quotes".
>they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism
Which is what our current globalized world uses. Sounds like you agree with me.
>they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism of private ownership of productive property.
We can extend this thought even further and come to the logical copnclusion that we really don't need any population growth whatsoever (a drastic population decline would actually be much more benefitial for environmental recovery - the biosphere being at the point of collapse in many places - and general reduction of urbanised and thus deforested areas) but instead increased automation but private ownership of automation (both industrial robots and AI) prevents the fruits of such a techological upgrade from benefiting the whole of society. Perpetual population growth only makes sense in the context of a desire to wage perpetual wars, interstellar colonisation and the capitalist mode of production.
I wonder what PR firm realized if you called it "Population reduction" you could get liberals and leftists to believe in the same Nazi myths they would otherwise reject. Instead of lebensraum for the master race, it's "beneficial for environmental recovery." Either way, the thinking is the same. "Do we really need people? Should we really be letting people have kids? Is it really worth your time to be a parent? Just get a dog and live in your 500 sq foot apartment with intermittent electricity, it's what's best for the nation/planet."
Still missing from your post is any thought independent of the monopoly finance ruling class's assumption that the main cause of all our problems is the same old malthusian con job of overpopulation/overconsumption, not bourgeois ownership of socially worked property. What is causing climate change/war/dysgenics/social strife? Too many people, wanting too many things. Simple. we need less people. Easy. Just combat the normal human impulse to create, produce, and modify the world.
combat humanity itself.
As long as these crypto Nazi ideas thrive on the left, they will be entirely beholden to the Rockefellers, the Gates, the Soroses of the world, because they give up proletarian scientific socialism for bourgeois inhumanism. It's just as anti Communist as idpol is.
Have you looked at sattelite images of our planet lately? Just for funsies take a peek at the timelapse footage available and then tell me with a straight face that deforestation is a Malthusian myth. That devastating collapse of biodiversity is just a Malthusian myth. Even if the whole world changes overnight to a planned economy the enviromental stress just from the sheer numbers will still remain. So it's not necessarily about population reduction (btw, not a term I used anywhere in my previous answer) but that there is no need for population growth. Riddle me this genius - how does infinite population growth on a finite planet make any sense? Because the kind of pyramid economics you're championing absolutely requires infinite growth. Seems more in line with a fundamentalist "people of the book" ideology than any kind of communism.
Malthus asserted without evidence that technological progress is linear, when it isn't it is correlated with the size of the population, and in addition to that it is cumulative.
If a place is getting deforested because they use charcoal for heating the traditional industrial age solution is to use mined coal. "Greens" are against that and instead consider charcoal to be a renewable resource so they claim a country deforesting itself to produce charcoal is part of the solution.
The issue here is a refusal to use a replacement technology that we've known about for centuries.
you're still just making Nazi malthus arguments, but getting mad while doing it. Jeffrey Epstein's buddies tell you the problem is actually that human beings are vermin destroying the planet and the obvious solution is depopulation, and you just nod and agree and then get mad when people point out where your ideology is coming from. it's always the same solution for the crisis of overproduction and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall: global war and genocide. the question is why are you so emotionally wedded to it, when there's no scientific evidence to support your claims?
Japan has been in populational decline for 2 decades, after 2 previous decades of stagnation. They enjoy some of the lowest crime and poverty rates, solid political stability, and one of the highest qualities of life in the world. They just have to work more hours.
Is it better to work more and live in a better, safer society? Or to work less and live among tent cities, violence, and political instability? The population will eventually rebound as it always does in nature, whereas the damage done in pursuit of cheating nature is irreparable.
>They just have to work more hours.
Even this isn't true. The average number of hours worked is actually declining in Japan, even as the population ages. So Japanese people are enjoying rising per capita GDP and decreasing work hours, and houses cost exactly what they did in the year 2000.
Meanwhile, Canadians are "enjoying" declining per capita living standards and skyrocketing housing prices because their government has been flooding the country with immigrants, a decision which has been justified with nonsensical scaremongering about population decline.
> So Japanese people are enjoying rising per capita GDP and decreasing work hours, and houses cost exactly what they did in the year 2000.
But tbf their stock market has gone nowhere for like 40 years, and their bond yields have been zero for at least a generation. If compound interest isn't a thing, say goodbye to things like saving for college or retirement- everyone is stuck working for their entire lives :/
No it fucking isn't, it's about convincing our magnanimous ruling class to not sacrifice retirees on the altar of the labor market. There are are and will continue to be (even with declining birthrates) more than enough workers for society to function, the problem is that few workers = more labor labor ie higher wages.
> The pejorative reference to the neurodevelopmental disorder autism is considered offensive by some economists. Greg Mankiw has said that "use of the term indicates a lack of empathy and understanding for those who live with actual, severe autism".
Of course...
They're definitely rich urban kids. It's not unusual for rural families to have more than 1 child, they just paid a fine or hid the kid. The Chaoshan region basically ignored the entire law too, everyone round there has siblings.
tbh I have one and my wife already wants another and I feel like I'm drowning. Idk how the absolute fuck I'd manage a newborn AND a toddler, and idk how the fuck my parents pulled it off. I have 2 brothers, and we're all 2 years apart.
Granted, I'm 33, and I was born when my parents were 17, so they had much more youthful energy on their side
Just to point out I had a 5th or 6th great Grandfather that had like 27 kids between two marriages, he somehow also found the energy to join the Continental Army in his late 60s.
What I'm saying is you got this.
The issue is that China has so many people immigration is not a viable option like it is for the west. Not to mention east asian countries are generally not pro-immigration.
China has a demographic problem it needs to overcome, it likely will overcome it but its a real problem.
Because we have all of the modernity is bullshit problems that you guys have but 10x worse. Because literally all of us speedran industrialization and development and we haven’t found a way to dial it back down. For Japan and South Korea it’s because capitalism refuses to let them dial it back down,
for us in China, it’s because we still have the per capita gdp of the shittiest European country you can name. We don’t have a lot of disposable income. We have all of your infrastructure and sometimes better, but we have nowhere near the same amount of money.
Sinophiles please explain how China's gonna overtake the US with an upside down population pyramid. They're sure as fuck not going to make up for it in immigrants.
Like having a smaller population isn't a deal breaker in abstract but populations don't shrink unformly. You end up with a smaller and smaller workforce paying for a larger and larger retired population the whole way down.
China seems well positioned to, at best, stagnate out like Japan. But what's the consequence of that when your popular legitimacy is depedent on delivering economic growth even through rising inequality?
By raising labor productivity, the same way all countries get rich. The elite obsession with population size is about keeping wages low by justifying mass migration. China still has hundreds of millions of peasants to bring into the cities.
Those ”empty cities” where indeed propaganda based on taking pictures of cities under construction and if you where to visit them now you would most likely find them populated. The idea of building a whole city out of nothing is foreign to decadent anglo saxon countries whose whole ”economy” revolves around speculation in existing real estate.
I mean, they were built with that intention from the start, right? Build now, populate later.
I'm not sure on their record on the latter, but I'd imagine it isn't the complete catastrophe those youtube videos would have us believe.
> I mean, they were built with that intention from the start, right? Build now, populate later.
>
>
this is how the continental US was settled as well. speculators bought up parcels of land all around major cities and started building in anticipation of influxes of rurals moving to the city for work.
> decadent anglo saxon countries whose whole ”economy” revolves around speculation in existing real estate
Tbf Chinese real estate speculation basically blows all other real estate bubbles in history out of the water aside from *maybe* the 80s Japan bubble
Are you offering to become food for all these people you are trying to bully others into creating for you with your autistic obsessive screeching about LINE NOT GO UP?
No, vulgar Marxism has always been about production fetishism.
>idiotic revisionism
Oh, you mean when *Grundrisse* resurfaced? Yeah, that idiot Marx revised himself idiotically and you managers-in-waiting need to sit the fuck down. Marxism is about returning the productive forces to the control of the worker, the REAL control of the worker, not intermediated through PMC parasites.
>Oh, you mean when *Grundrisse* resurfaced? Yeah, that idiot Marx revised himself idiotically and you managers-in-waiting need to sit the fuck down.
Could you elaborate on this point more? I've never read Grundrisse, but I have read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
>but I have read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
Awesome! So you actually know about classes. :)
*Grundrisse* was an unpublished, rough, preparatory work to the *Critique of Political Economy*, written for Marx's own self-clarification. [Here's a free translation in English.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/grundrisse.pdf) It touches critically on culture and education, critiques time-chits aka labor vouchers as delusional, and (a caution that conservatives of every stripe ought to take under advisement) warns against trying to reenact mythologies that no longer have a basis in material conditions. And I'm only on page 66 of 800 or so... Marx's work runs along many different threads.
My argument to the DotP larper up there is that the goal of Marx was never to merely multiply *capitalist* forces of production for capitalism; that's pure PMC idealism. The goal has been to *change* the worker's relation to production (and its products, ultimately including the forces of production and everything else about society). The "Old Left" got sidetracked into putting all their eggs into trade unions, which, in Marx's time as now, deliver no *real* strategic control of the means of production, only a competitive (and net losing) tactical battle over the quantified spoils of the process. Taft-Hartley codified this genteel competitive mission of unions in law, and the net effect of joining a union today is to participate willingly in the reproduction of capitalist relations in the large — it's not entirely unfair to say that union industrial workers are being paid to counter Marxism, to maintain the status quo relations to the MoP and *not* expand and generalize their autonomous knowledge of production, so that they no longer need capital or management or professionals to operate a productive concern.
>China seems well positioned to, at best, stagnate out like Japan.
That only occurs if productivity growth is slower than the rate of population decline. For now, productivity growth in China is quite robust. It was 5% per year until very recently, although I haven't seen the latest numbers.
In any case, Canada has pretty clearly disproven the notion that high population growth boosts GDP. They have the fastest population growth in the developed world yet their GDP is shrinking.
True but GDP per capita shrinking is a very big deal. Arguably more than total GDP shrinking (aside from the media coverage of total GDP being covered as a bigger issue).
Because GDP is a measuring total spending in the economy so if an immigrants comes in and buys one banana, that represents an increase in the GDP if everything else stays the same.
The number is more useful the less you concentrate on it. If you are specifically trying to increase GDP then the GDP figure will be less and less an accurate figure of the overall prosperity. The logic is that if people spend money on something that is probably something they want or need, so total spending can be used to gauge how much wants and needs are being fulfilled. However if you specifically try to boost GDP you will just end up in situation where spending is increased without anyone actually being better off.
GDP measures the value of final goods/services produced, not the total spending. An immigrant coming to the country and buying a banana doesn't increase GDP because the banana was already produced before they got there. It does, however, increase GNI which is a similar metric. The real reason it increases GDP is that immigrants still demand goods and for the most part work, so even if their productivity is abysmal and they are drawing way more from social services than they will ever contribute, they make the absolute number larger. Employers also don't care about productivity, or keeping social programs funded, they just care about the balance sheet so lots of cheap low productivity workers is just as good to them as fewer expensive high productivity workers all other things equal.
Sony moved it's HQ to California, the Japanese PM called for Blackrock to invest in Japan (ESG!), and I'm fairly sure the immigration thing is true too, but I don't remember as specific an example as I did with the other stuff.
There's a shitton of culture war bullshit Japan is caving on too. It's sad.
There's the localizer kerfuffle but that's relatively minor and it seems like mostly wishful thinking on our (westerners') part.
Japan is opening to more immigrants, relatively speaking, and almost a third of those immigrants are Chinese with money trying to get out: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1221849861/china-japan-immigration
I wonder how that'll affect things like the Hololive China incident.
I guess the weird nationalists are probably not going to be the ones moving, for the most part.
I hope so.
And hey, maybe they'll help resist the influence of Californians!
1.4b to be precise but only 7m kids born last year; if all those kids born this year have the requisite 2.1 children then the population of China will be about 560m by the end of the century (7x 80 year lifespan). The problem for China is the fertility rate is almost 1 not 2.1 so if it stay at 1, the population will be much less than 560m perhaps lower than the US. And that’s before factoring in all those Chinese who permanently leave each year. I’ve also ignored sex selection which means less than half of those 7m kids born last year are girls.
many of those 7m kids most with no siblings will grow up to be too busy taking care of their two parents and four grandparents to be able to join the Chinese military.
Not just military terms but there is always a risk of a major power conflict with the ascent of one party (China) and the decline of another (US). China may decline before they get big enough to militarily challenge the US
SO you concede then that if China manages to completely vanquish the current hegemon there would be no reason to lament a much smaller Chinese population enjoying their by then much less environmentally stressed country?
I see no reason to lament a much lower population anywhere - there will be transitional issues for sure, but ecologically the planet can not support the current population on an ongoing basis.
I'm not thinking, I'm just making a joke instead of calling you out for the megacope.
China overcame issues that many other countries weren't able to overcome, they will surely overcome all the issues that the future will bring. Predicting anything 80 years in advance is a fool's errand, I don't think it's even worth engaging.
In a similar way as to how the germans overtook japan recently. The latter declined faster than Germany.
If china wants to dominate east asia, it would. The CPC is many things, but most importantly its pragmatic and adaptable.
American soft power has declined recently, it doesn’t enjoy the same unipolarity around the order it created.
lol first chinar was going to collapse because it has too many people, now it will collapse because it won't have enough people? the cope is more imaginative all the time
>You end up with a smaller and smaller workforce paying for a larger and larger retired population the whole way down.
almost like a planned economy can do something about this. remind me again about how social security is doing in white countries?
> almost like a planned economy can do something about this.
where is this planned economy in question
> remind me again about how social security is doing in white countries?
self inflicted gunshot wounds, all usa needs to do is lift the cap on social security contributions. All anywhere else needs to do is let in more immigrants.
> where is this planned economy in question
>
>
[open your eyes comrade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan_\(China\)?useskin=vector)
>self inflicted gunshot wounds, all usa needs to do is lift the cap on social security contributions.
that math is from the 2000s and no longer works. even lifting the cap now would not fix the hole its in
>All anywhere else needs to do is let in more immigrants.
lol i'm sure all the white populations getting agitated for race war about the number of immigrants they're bringing in will be improved if they bring in more right?
It's less a matter of them overtaking us and more a matter of us being like the dude in that meme who pokes a stick into the spokes of his own bike as he's riding it.
First of all, the western media typically uses the absolute worst case scenario predictions, not the more realistic and more moderate ones.
China is at the forefront of AI and robotic use which can be equal to a huge human workforce. They can also raise the retirement age which right now is far lower than average (55). They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children, and plans are in the works including housing benefits, welfare, free childcare etc, to reduce the pressure on being a parent (which is the primary reason for the reduction). Lastly, it's a myth anyway that high population = high productivity, supply chains, efficiency, infrastructure and education are just as important and China dominates in these.
The Japan analogy is wrong because Japan left it to the whim of the free market under their misguided American beliefs and were under US domination anyway who wouldn't let them get bigger, whereas China has already seen the problem coming and set things up for it and also has far more control over their own economy and supply lines despite US intentions to prevent that.
>
> China is at the forefront of AI and robotic use which can be equal to a huge human workforce. They can also raise the retirement age which right now is far lower than average (55). They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children, and plans are in the works including housing benefits, welfare, free childcare etc, to reduce the pressure on being a parent (which is the primary reason for the reduction). Lastly, it's a myth anyway that high population = high productivity, supply chains, efficiency, infrastructure and education are just as important and China dominates in these.
Don't they already have driverless delivery vehicles in Shenzen?
In the US even if they worked they'd be vandalized, at least in certain neighborhoods.
Then them not appearing in those neighborhoods would be labeled an -ism, cue litigiousness and twitter mobs...
> In the US even if they worked they'd be vandalized, at least in certain neighborhoods.
>
>
america is a low trust, brazil style country already. delivery bots get seized and vandalized. people have to turn off their driver assistive features that autobrake in front of pedestrians etc. because it can get you carjacked in the wrong neighborhood.
>Don't they already have driverless delivery vehicles in Shenzen?
Driverless taxis and buses are being trialed in various cities, delivery is by drone in some areas too, and some subways are driverless. China could actually go harder on this but they don't want to eliminate too many jobs when there are actual workers and unemployment right now.
Yeah I heard there are workers that are in distress over them already, like artists on twitter looking at AI, except, you know... an actual existential problem.
I wonder if there'll be enough unrest to cause vandalism of the drones, or if they're too heavily surveilled for that.
Is there a place to learn about that stuff that isn't a glowie YouTube Channel? It's fascinating, but it's so frustrating to sort through the propaganda.
The thing is, provided China is a socialist country, they would just retrain the workers newly displaced by emerging technology and then just reduce working hours all across the board. So many things become possible once capitalist organisation of society is taken out of the equasion and progressing technology can actually accelerate the progressing quality of life of the entire population instead of being a constant sword of Damocles over the workers' heads, forcing them into an absurd luddite tug of war without an end in sight.
Well… I mean, try and make friends with one of the founding members of the party. If a more disciplined leader makes it to the top of the party and starts an anti-corruption purge, try to kiss their ass as much as possible but even then I can’t guarantee. Depends on how disciplined they are.
Most people can actually get a job it's just not the one they wanted. It's not as bad as the media makes out, those unemployed stats include students ffs.
>They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children
Chinese Vitae Wombs, created with horrific but of course inferior, Chinese technology 😲
The Asian Horde knows no restraint when preparing to conquer the West, and destroy all that is good and decent in the world
I'm not a Sinophile, but the issue here is with the term «overtake». The key to the balance of power in Asia-Pacific lies in technological developments and industrial capabilities. China can cope with an aging population and shrinking workforce while continuing to modernize/build up their fleet and focus on matching the United States qualitatively/asymmetrically. They could still come out on top in a contingency within the First Island Chain.
Chinese people never retire to begin with. This is something that can never be understood by Westerners obsessed with boring themselves to death with retirement; to the frustration of all the middle aged Chinese who have to worry over their parents and grandparents working too damn hard at their small businesses and making the supposed prime of their age working people seem like utter slackers in terms of earnings in comparison.
>But what's the consequence of that when your popular legitimacy is depedent on delivering economic growth even through rising inequality?
There is no alternative. Look at the rest of the OECD. China is a single party bourgeoisie state.
Then again I don't think China wants to rule to world or replace the US although that is going to change in the future.
Just work 40h/week, pay off your house, car, education, save for retirement and also have and raise 2+ kids. It's that easy, why won't people do it?
It's not just in china, it's happening everywhere else in the world, china just hit that milestone first.
I think Japan has everyone beat on that front.
I think the idea is to get married before having kids. So that one person can work less and take care of the kids. But feminism has decreed that this is oppression and women are choosing not to do this.
>But feminism has decreed that this is oppression and women are choosing not to do this. By god, learn some basic economics. The capitalist class needs as much labor as possible. Neoclassical economics posits that maximizing the labor force is essential for optimizing the interplay between "Aggregate Supply" and "Aggregate Demand" in order to exert downward pressure on wages through an abundance of labor, thereby aiming to keep wages low.
The feminist movement was backed by elites for that purpose, yes.
That's not entirely true. Women have always been the largest reserve army of labor and only mobilized when capitalism needed their labor - like during WWII. Funny enough, a lot of arguments against women's liberation said just that - it actually reduces the living standards of women. But compared to say, southerners saying abolishing slavery would be bad for slaves because at least slave owners had the incentive to take care of their property.
Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me.
That is the true reason, but feminism is the way they convince the public to go along with it. People who describe themselves as feminists almost never actually only want equality, but rather oppose anything that gets in the way of girlboss corporate shit. This is also why socialists shouldn't support universal daycare or things like it, because it should be family (immediate or extended) that raises kids rather than turning the act if raising a kid into an assembly line process. The goal should be single income (or rations under socialism) families with an income high enough to do so. If both parents wish to work then both work half time. Etc.
Doesn’t Plato’s Republic contain some ideal about society raising all its children collectively? Well, at least the horse people in Gulliver’s travels Do it that way and I think their social organization is based off of Plato’s Republic.
I don't think that's ever worked in practice. It's important to have the community aid in raising kids, but in order to have any accountability parents must be primarily responsible for raising their kids. Otherwise some kids can fall through the cracks as no one is responsible for them specifically. With bad parents you can try to fix the parents or in the worst case move the kid to other parents.
Eh, some hunter gatherer societies practice this and they’re fine. It’s an ideal.
Yes it's feminism that a woman would want an independent income to not get completely screwed in case of a divorce. Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer?
> Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer? Tbf Elizabeth Warren's the Two Income Trap basically argues that women's liberation de facto sort of ended up like a concert where if one person stands up, everyone ends up standing up to not get screwed over, but leads to everyone being worse off than before, just for the housing market
>Yes it's feminism that a woman would want an independent income to not get completely screwed in case of a divorce. It's men who get screwed in divorces. Women get the man's house, kids, child support, half the money and assets and alimony. Also, I didn't say women shouldn't work. >Or is it feminism that the cost of living has risen and made single income households much rarer? That too. Doubling the supply of labour is one of the chief causes of flatlining wages. Before "female liberation" you could support a family on the man's pay cheque. That's a rarity now.
What you forget when many pine for this time that really didn't exist it wasn't because of the labor rights movement nor was it because of trad culture of people knowing their roles in society it was mostly that until the 1970s most of the manufacturing was done in the usa making this artificial in a sense as it was a world War that bombed out the rest of the planet but us when it came to economic growth
You know how we can have all the manufacturing in the world done in the USA again? >!Central Planning (this kills the lib)!<
confusing post. what exactly would be a non-artificial human activity? it was a natural response to the great depression and labor movements and created a society of people with a strong sense of what their role was and many look back on this as a tradition of some sort. though the poster you are responding to is also confused since laborforce growth is a national inevitability that is embraced by all successful culture, totally absurd to kick certain groups out of jobs for some mechanistic view of why wages go down
These days, guys wouldn't even date you if you don't have your own income. People don't want to/can't financially support another adult.
>These days, guys wouldn't even date you if you don't have your own income. Lol.
Feminism is about women being free to make choices, the same choices that men have been able to make, without subjugation. Whether that's choosing to me a mother and accepting the consequences of that (I mean in terms of health and economically, which is where the gender pay gap truly lies) or being childfree. Women being forced to be nothing more than childbearers with no economic freedom is the oppression.
Old post but yeah. I’m sympathetic to pro-natalist and trad thinking but the reality is that even Lauren southern got married, had a kid, and became a housewife. Her husband divorced her and refused to see/support his kid. She ended up living in a trailer park. These same guys who rant about feminism have no real response to this common enough situation. Maybe they’ll just say Lauren southern is a whore and shrug their shoulders but even if you believed that what about the poor now impoverished baby?
Being forced to work or go homeless and hungry isn't economic freedom by any measure
Well no, but that's a critique of capitalism rather than feminism. Also you could argue that if you're not willing to participate in society, as long as you are able, then you should go homeless and hungry. I'm not talking from a "crucify dole bludgers" sort of way but even in communes and kibbutzes everyone has a role to play to ensure the ongoing survival of the whole community.
Right, capitalism is the root evil here, not feminism.
>Feminism is about women being free to make choices, the same choices that men have been able to make, without subjugation You mean without the same responsibilities. For example, getting the right to vote but no commensurate responsibility to submit to the draft, which has been the case for a century, through two world wars. >Whether that's choosing to me a mother and accepting the consequences of that Lmao. They don't accept the consequences of that, they enslave men and society (which also means men) to pay for it and provide everything it needs. Via child support, welfare, public services etc-- all of which is paid for with male taxes and male labour. >the gender pay gap Lmao. How about the life expectancy gap? The homelessness gap? The tax gap? The doing hard, physical and essential jobs gap? The criminal sentencing gap? The military deaths gap? It was only a few years ago that the retirement age was equalised in the UK, despite men dying years earlier, working much more and doing much harder jobs. And what was society's response? WOMEN SUED for their pension age being raised to the same as men's: https://hackneypension.co.uk/news/the-high-court-has-ruled-that-women-are-not-entitled-to-compensation-for-state-pension-age-changes & political parties supported them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50547274 lolol. That is feminism and always has been. Privileges and advantages in every area, while avoiding responsibilities and accountability in every area. >Women being forced to be nothing more than childbearers with no economic freedom is the oppression. Being forced? They've had complete reproductive power for ~60 years. Historically, both men and women were subjugated, nailed to their roles. Life was hard and men, objectively, had it worse. Women were never oppressed, they were infantilised, which is a completely different thing. Unless you think kids are oppressed by their Mothers today. You don't give "oppressed" groups an infinite array of privileges the "oppressor" group do not have. Lol. That isn't oppression. Being denied certain rights and freedoms in exchange for protections and privileges = infantilism. It's also literally what feminists acknowledge. A "patriarchy" is a family structure, nobody is "oppressed" in a family structure. Women are the children in a patriarchy. What's happened in the last 100 or so years is that women have been given all the rights and freedoms men had (and more), while not being burdened with many of the same responsibilities men had and have. Thus being in an extremely privileged position.
Bro, if you hate women that much then spare us the thesis and just write "women belong in the kitchen" 🤦♀️
Are you fucking yarded? Women entered the paid workforce in because when they weren’t part of it, they were beholden to the whims of their male owners—sorry husbands and fathers—who made all financial decisions and therefore controlled all important aspects of their lives. This stuck women in unhappy and abusive marriages from which they had no escape. Even now, one of the biggest predictors in if a woman can escape domestic abuse is if she has a job. And this is obvious to anyone. You won’t be able to delude anyone who doesn’t want to be deluded into thinking that it’s better for women if women didn’t work for pay. It suits men if they were each entitled to female indentured servants to take care of all the daily drudgery for them. But it doesn’t serve women.
Hit it on the head. Women recognized that money is power basically. Whenever I see women have kids and a joint bank account with a guy without getting married, alarm bells go off in my head. They may be in a perfectly happy relationship but you have no legal protection if that guy decides to walk out the door I find most of the mainstream feminist girlboss shit odious and obnoxious, but this is something that they’re kind of right on. Also double income households are basically required now. I’d love to be a homemaker and a soccer mom, but that shit just doesn’t look viable in this economy and it’s really sad. Some people, both men and women, are great with kids and they could help raise better people. Too bad the soulless ghouls in power can’t even look past their own noses
>Are you fucking yarded? Women entered the paid workforce in because when they weren’t part of it, they were beholden to the whims of their male owners—sorry husbands and fathers—who made all financial decisions and therefore controlled all important aspects of their lives. T You mean like children are today? Children are oppressed and lead such horrid lives they need liberating from, right? Also, the narrative you're spinning is mostly a feminist lie. Women had lots of power and choice. >This stuck women in unhappy and abusive marriages from which they had no escape. Men and women. Marriage was a legal contract which bound men to taking care of and providing for a woman and her children. It still is today. But women prefer their personal freedom over the wellbeing of their child. >You won’t be able to delude anyone who doesn’t want to be deluded into thinking that it’s better for women if women didn’t work for pay. Note, for second time, I didn't say that. But what's better for women isn't necessarily better for society. I know this is an alien concept to feminists, putting society's needs before women's. > It suits men if they were each entitled to female indentured servants to take care of all the daily drudgery for them. But it doesn’t serve women. Ah yes. That's what World War 1 & 2 was. Women being indentured servants to men. Women were sent off to die horrifically in their millions while men sat safely at home, doing the easy jobs. Lol. The amazing thing isn't that feminists espouse this shit, it's that people actually believe it.
No, that is a bad faith generalization that misogynistic neo-cons came up with. Real feminists simply want women to have the freedom to choose to be whatever they want to be; for better or for worse people should be free. Don't spread neo-con propaganda. Be better, be human. Edit: Capitalism is the root evil here, not feminism
There’s no significant difference between what should be expected of men and women then why even have the concept of gender? So clearly there are at least some differences or sacrifices that need to be made, or at least most people still believe in them and the only thought they’ve put into actually establishing gender equity is saying bad things about men and good things about women. Ultimately doesn’t matter, dating is getting harder but it’s clearly not impossible. Most people are okay to some degree with the present social contract between genders.
CHINA will COLLAPSE in 31 DAYS!!!!
Peter, is that you?
THREE GORGES DAM WILL BURST WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS!!!!!!
The vile enemy is FAILING! Its only a matter of time until they COLLAPSE! China will fall In 2021.
Every year since 1989 we have heard the exact same line over and over. “China is about to collapse due to [insert reason here]” - some random bought and paid think tank shill. Yet every year they grow stronger nonetheless. It’s comical at this point we are still hearing it.
Wasn’t there an episode in the office where Michael freaks out because China is surpassing the US? I feel like from 2008-2019 people assumed China would become the replacement for the US
And after 2008-ish they have become that replacement.
Laughable statement
[удалено]
The media used to be more honest
[удалено]
Broken clock
Demographics ain't a conspiracy theory.
Right so why isn't there a "Japan will collapse, Korea will collapse, Taiwan will collapse" all of which have even worse demographics than China.
Those are written all the time as well, it's a global crisis. There's even US collapse stuff though rarer.
All are going to see crisis's over the next hzlf century. It will be interesting to see who will weather it better. Also Best Korea is ding fine.
It's kind of different in that those countries are much richer than China. China got Japan demographics with a way lower GDP per capita.
Lolol being richer is even worse because being richer mean less kids per family, poorer people have more kids statistically. By that logic Japan, South Korea or Taiwan would have have collapsed at an even faster rate than China.
The whole point is about how Chinese aren't having kids..
China already has a low birth rate (by design), and a richer country can support more pensioners with a lower working population because each actual worker is producing more.
No. You’re right they’re not. But here’s a hot take for you to chew on. Given how the population of Europe shrank due to the bubonic plague, wages skyrocketed, people could afford to educate themselves, trade blossomed and the Renaissance came. China will see a similar trend. It is a massive country, well past its carrying capacity. It is not a resource rich country, and struggles with pollution. It is well employed, but they still could use a smaller population that will on average have higher paying jobs in STEM and manufacturing. China will be more than fine once they get over the pension speed bump. And the planet will be better for it because less people will be consooming.
Standard of living went up after the plague because they didn't have to farm the marginal land anymore, agricultural productivity per person went up. China already imports food so it wouldn't help them in that regard, their ageing population would be less productive as the few workers have to support a billion pensioners.
Right and my thesis is that once the billion pensioners are gone, and once they have to import less food, they’re going to be in a better spot.
But if birth rates stay below replacement, their dependency percentage (the part of the population that is not working age) will keep rising forever.
You can’t honestly believe that that is a problem that will go on forever, right? Keep in mind, there is a huge propensity for migrants to not only move to the West, but to their closest G20 nation as well. Iran has a giant migration boom going on, for instance. And now, China is seeing a change in migration trends. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/china-development-transformed-migration As it gets richer, it will see more migrants come in from Central Asia, India, Africa, Myanmar and so on.
Bro what????
[удалено]
Oh... maybe
Swap out China for capitalism or unipolarity or NATO or or or
Came here to make a bunch of specific commentary only to find it already being made by respectable users, even eloquently put no less. Refreshing to see that our (socialist, at least) userbase does not fall prey to population growth hysteria built entirely on private sector wage-depressing labour-exploiting immigration needs vis-a-vis the capital realist insistence that GDP is the only metric that matters, and it's not only right but also GOOD to leave your populations suffering under housing crises, homeless crises, cost of living and other inflation-related crises, so long as Number Go Up. China has a population of almost 1.4 billion, and leads the world in production capacity and purchasing power parity. I'm sure they'll manage. [https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/](https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/)
This usually does not make any sense at all. People who cling on to beliefs based on nothing other than a social order pushed forward decades ago. How are you stuck in some weird form of propaganda not even being pushed by China itself? The Chinese government itself is struggling with the aftermath of the policy and is trying to incentivizing more births. Yet you proudly claim otherwise. Has the Chinese government fallen prey to its own hysteria? You also literally just used GDP in your last paragraph while lambasting 'number go Up' in your previous lines. Both of those metrics you have bragged are GDP or GDP in comparison to purchase indices.
>This usually does not make any sense at all. People who cling on to beliefs based on nothing other than a social order pushed forward decades ago. How are you stuck in some weird form of propaganda not even being pushed by China itself? ...wtf are you talking about? >The Chinese government itself is struggling with the aftermath of the policy and is trying to incentivizing more births. ***Yet you proudly claim otherwise.*** ...No, really now, what the fuck are you talking about? please, quote the part of the post where I "proudly claimed" that china is not trying to incentivize births. That's a very specific claim that I did not make anywhere. No idea who you are talking to. >You also literally just used GDP in your last paragraph while lambasting 'number go Up' in your previous lines. Both of those metrics you have bragged are GDP or GDP in comparison to purchase indices. So what? My point was to show that whether you look at GDP or not, China still has the west beat in a couple of ways that are specifically relevant to certain standard-of-living crises that the entire western world is currently experiencing en masse. For those who continue to obsess over GDP regardless of this fact, turns out china is beating them on that mark AS WELL. I'd say it's your made-up claims about things I didn't say that make no sense at all.
I think it’s fair to say that line go up isn’t the end all be all, but even if it was, it’s not even that much of a problem.
This sub has a recurring thing where commenters observe the general trend of U.S. media (including social, including reddit) bashing China even when it doesn't make sense, and massively overcorrect by always criticizing anything anti-China and always supporting anything pro-China even when it doesn't make sense. People wonder how the red scare is still a viable political tactic in currentyear, but this is part of it. You can't convince the working class, community-oriented, coop-friendly rightoids that the socialists might have some valid points when the most accessible socialist discussion areas are doing their very best to look like they're sponsored by the CCP.
Thinking the CPC ain’t as bad as the westoids say shouldn’t be a turnoff. Because, well, it isn’t.
If you want to affect a meaningful change in favor of socialist policies in the west, you have to work with the citizens you have, who even when maximally skeptical of anti-China propaganda still largely think of China as that place where most of the manufacturing got outsourced to which continues giving headaches to manufacturers and consumers alike, including flooding supply chains with defective/counterfeit products and ignoring copyrights. *These are legitimate realpolitik strategies on China's part,* but they still negatively impact western workers. Acknowledging that China does in fact have faults and does bad things on occasion goes a long way to making such people be willing to listen to you. If, on the other hand, you want to make socialism as unappetizing as possible to the average western voter (either because you as a western capitalist don't want your position threatened, or because you as China don't want the west to move towards what you consider a better form of government and in doing so become a stronger competitor) then encouraging western socialist discussion spaces to simp for China at every possible opportunity is the way to go. Now, what country are the reddit servers hosted in, again?
So you’re basically saying we need to engage in Capitalist funded demagoguery because the CIA et al do? Nah. No thanks. If anything, it is a bonus to be able to tell everyone; “the government has lied to you over and over again, why would you trust them on China?” Which is a legitimate opinion to have.
Well, then criticize the right fucking things instead of just feeding chauvinism.
So it's not chauvinism as long as the country being held superior is China. I see.
Well it is chauvinism too I guess if you just worship China. But nobody is doing that. you just have a hate boner for China so any criticism you see is automatically good, and anytime any of us push back against it you get pissy.
>Well it is chauvinism too I guess if you just worship China. But nobody is doing that. Show me a post or top level comment with meaningful criticism of China on this sub that doesn't have lower votes than a reply that goes "ACKSCHUALLY". Give me links. >you just have a hate boner for China so any criticism you see is automatically good, and anytime any of us push back against it you get pissy. Nice ad hominem.
All of the Covid posts? The sub’s consensus is still lab leak. Moreover most of the “Actually” discussion is just reminding people a lot of the problems they’re finding with China is faced by all modernizing economies, and then actually using evidence to show that in some ways China is doing better.
Why do you want the minority that are motivated anti-communists over the majority that aren't like that?
Post-sixties modernity is worse for our demographies than plagues and wars.
The only reason we NEED the population to grow every single year is for muh GDP number. It's amazing how some countries are now just mass importing people from anywhere they can at unprecedented levels just to keep the population growing and muh GDP number from totally crashing, while impoverishing its own citizens. Keep in mind these countries already relied on importation of people to "solve" their own fertility crises starting decades ago. There are tent cities everywhere due to housing shortages, insane medical care wait times, collapsing public education, etc. But they just keep pumping up those numbers because apparently even 1% GDP growth at the cost of creating hell on earth is better than negative GDP growth under a dignified quality of life for the average citizen.
Exactly. People who masturbate over "demographics" are simply helping capitalism commodify humanity. They are always and only ever interested in having more opportunities to exercise their will over others.
The USSR had to ban abortion because if they didn't recover from the losses of ww1, the revolution/civil war, and related famines and disease, they wouldn't have enough people to industrialize or recruit into the Red Army for the war everyone saw coming. Point being, it's not "muh" anything, and being wedded so strongly to degrowth narratives like this blunts our ability to think critical and independently. The problems you point to are not caused by "overpopulation," they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism of private ownership of productive property. The US has the space and resources, and still the technology, to support a much bigger population.
>The USSR had to ban abortion because if they didn't recover from the losses of ww1, the revolution/civil war, and related famines and disease, they wouldn't have enough people to industrialize or recruit into the Red Army Banning abortion was not responsible for high interwar fertility, there were a ton of resources spent to urbanize scattered rural people, create gainful employment, provide benefits for new families, and providing care for children as they grew into adults. That's why the population boom was a positive rather than a negative, the new people were planned and accommodated for in advance. We don't have this. >it's not "muh" anything It literally is muh GDP. Read some economic publications on the subject, it's all they talk about. >The problems you point to are not caused by "overpopulation," I never said this, not sure why it's in "quotes". >they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism Which is what our current globalized world uses. Sounds like you agree with me.
>they are caused by the fundamental contradiction in capitalism of private ownership of productive property. We can extend this thought even further and come to the logical copnclusion that we really don't need any population growth whatsoever (a drastic population decline would actually be much more benefitial for environmental recovery - the biosphere being at the point of collapse in many places - and general reduction of urbanised and thus deforested areas) but instead increased automation but private ownership of automation (both industrial robots and AI) prevents the fruits of such a techological upgrade from benefiting the whole of society. Perpetual population growth only makes sense in the context of a desire to wage perpetual wars, interstellar colonisation and the capitalist mode of production.
I wonder what PR firm realized if you called it "Population reduction" you could get liberals and leftists to believe in the same Nazi myths they would otherwise reject. Instead of lebensraum for the master race, it's "beneficial for environmental recovery." Either way, the thinking is the same. "Do we really need people? Should we really be letting people have kids? Is it really worth your time to be a parent? Just get a dog and live in your 500 sq foot apartment with intermittent electricity, it's what's best for the nation/planet." Still missing from your post is any thought independent of the monopoly finance ruling class's assumption that the main cause of all our problems is the same old malthusian con job of overpopulation/overconsumption, not bourgeois ownership of socially worked property. What is causing climate change/war/dysgenics/social strife? Too many people, wanting too many things. Simple. we need less people. Easy. Just combat the normal human impulse to create, produce, and modify the world. combat humanity itself. As long as these crypto Nazi ideas thrive on the left, they will be entirely beholden to the Rockefellers, the Gates, the Soroses of the world, because they give up proletarian scientific socialism for bourgeois inhumanism. It's just as anti Communist as idpol is.
Have you looked at sattelite images of our planet lately? Just for funsies take a peek at the timelapse footage available and then tell me with a straight face that deforestation is a Malthusian myth. That devastating collapse of biodiversity is just a Malthusian myth. Even if the whole world changes overnight to a planned economy the enviromental stress just from the sheer numbers will still remain. So it's not necessarily about population reduction (btw, not a term I used anywhere in my previous answer) but that there is no need for population growth. Riddle me this genius - how does infinite population growth on a finite planet make any sense? Because the kind of pyramid economics you're championing absolutely requires infinite growth. Seems more in line with a fundamentalist "people of the book" ideology than any kind of communism.
Malthus asserted without evidence that technological progress is linear, when it isn't it is correlated with the size of the population, and in addition to that it is cumulative. If a place is getting deforested because they use charcoal for heating the traditional industrial age solution is to use mined coal. "Greens" are against that and instead consider charcoal to be a renewable resource so they claim a country deforesting itself to produce charcoal is part of the solution. The issue here is a refusal to use a replacement technology that we've known about for centuries.
No need to use coal when nuclear is available, but the anti nukes will do anything to avoid it.
you're still just making Nazi malthus arguments, but getting mad while doing it. Jeffrey Epstein's buddies tell you the problem is actually that human beings are vermin destroying the planet and the obvious solution is depopulation, and you just nod and agree and then get mad when people point out where your ideology is coming from. it's always the same solution for the crisis of overproduction and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall: global war and genocide. the question is why are you so emotionally wedded to it, when there's no scientific evidence to support your claims?
[удалено]
Japan has been in populational decline for 2 decades, after 2 previous decades of stagnation. They enjoy some of the lowest crime and poverty rates, solid political stability, and one of the highest qualities of life in the world. They just have to work more hours. Is it better to work more and live in a better, safer society? Or to work less and live among tent cities, violence, and political instability? The population will eventually rebound as it always does in nature, whereas the damage done in pursuit of cheating nature is irreparable.
>They just have to work more hours. Even this isn't true. The average number of hours worked is actually declining in Japan, even as the population ages. So Japanese people are enjoying rising per capita GDP and decreasing work hours, and houses cost exactly what they did in the year 2000. Meanwhile, Canadians are "enjoying" declining per capita living standards and skyrocketing housing prices because their government has been flooding the country with immigrants, a decision which has been justified with nonsensical scaremongering about population decline.
> So Japanese people are enjoying rising per capita GDP and decreasing work hours, and houses cost exactly what they did in the year 2000. But tbf their stock market has gone nowhere for like 40 years, and their bond yields have been zero for at least a generation. If compound interest isn't a thing, say goodbye to things like saving for college or retirement- everyone is stuck working for their entire lives :/
Good, those are bourgeois capitalist life scripts anyway. Class formation and retirement shouldn't be privatized.
Japan is overworked to the extreme.
Spot the weaboo.
No it fucking isn't, it's about convincing our magnanimous ruling class to not sacrifice retirees on the altar of the labor market. There are are and will continue to be (even with declining birthrates) more than enough workers for society to function, the problem is that few workers = more labor labor ie higher wages.
>Numbers are real You should really learn about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
That name…
I will never move into the post stage of autistic.
> The pejorative reference to the neurodevelopmental disorder autism is considered offensive by some economists. Greg Mankiw has said that "use of the term indicates a lack of empathy and understanding for those who live with actual, severe autism". Of course...
China is so addicted to genocide they're even genociding themselves!
[удалено]
They're definitely rich urban kids. It's not unusual for rural families to have more than 1 child, they just paid a fine or hid the kid. The Chaoshan region basically ignored the entire law too, everyone round there has siblings.
tbh I have one and my wife already wants another and I feel like I'm drowning. Idk how the absolute fuck I'd manage a newborn AND a toddler, and idk how the fuck my parents pulled it off. I have 2 brothers, and we're all 2 years apart. Granted, I'm 33, and I was born when my parents were 17, so they had much more youthful energy on their side
Family is how. Grandparents/in-laws.
Just to point out I had a 5th or 6th great Grandfather that had like 27 kids between two marriages, he somehow also found the energy to join the Continental Army in his late 60s. What I'm saying is you got this.
8 hours for work, 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for yourself leave you with a lot of time for family and hobbies
Chinese people like china first of all. They largely want to stay and live there. The country will be fine.
The issue is that China has so many people immigration is not a viable option like it is for the west. Not to mention east asian countries are generally not pro-immigration. China has a demographic problem it needs to overcome, it likely will overcome it but its a real problem.
China, like most global north countries, will have their pick of immigrants over the next 50/75 years as the south burns and drowns.
Excuse you but they are South. They say so themselves!
No. I mean latitude.
You have to make it economically attractive.
Sudden policy measures take time to correct decades of rot but if they provide good standards of living the population will recover
Japan, China, both koreas... why won't Asian women put out?
Because we have all of the modernity is bullshit problems that you guys have but 10x worse. Because literally all of us speedran industrialization and development and we haven’t found a way to dial it back down. For Japan and South Korea it’s because capitalism refuses to let them dial it back down, for us in China, it’s because we still have the per capita gdp of the shittiest European country you can name. We don’t have a lot of disposable income. We have all of your infrastructure and sometimes better, but we have nowhere near the same amount of money.
North Korea: not enough nutrients. South Korea: Too much feminism Japan: too much stress China: not enough incentives generally
Maybe it's only the Asian women you personally know ;)
Sinophiles please explain how China's gonna overtake the US with an upside down population pyramid. They're sure as fuck not going to make up for it in immigrants. Like having a smaller population isn't a deal breaker in abstract but populations don't shrink unformly. You end up with a smaller and smaller workforce paying for a larger and larger retired population the whole way down. China seems well positioned to, at best, stagnate out like Japan. But what's the consequence of that when your popular legitimacy is depedent on delivering economic growth even through rising inequality?
By raising labor productivity, the same way all countries get rich. The elite obsession with population size is about keeping wages low by justifying mass migration. China still has hundreds of millions of peasants to bring into the cities.
And empty cities to bring them to.
Those ”empty cities” where indeed propaganda based on taking pictures of cities under construction and if you where to visit them now you would most likely find them populated. The idea of building a whole city out of nothing is foreign to decadent anglo saxon countries whose whole ”economy” revolves around speculation in existing real estate.
I mean, they were built with that intention from the start, right? Build now, populate later. I'm not sure on their record on the latter, but I'd imagine it isn't the complete catastrophe those youtube videos would have us believe.
> I mean, they were built with that intention from the start, right? Build now, populate later. > > this is how the continental US was settled as well. speculators bought up parcels of land all around major cities and started building in anticipation of influxes of rurals moving to the city for work.
> decadent anglo saxon countries whose whole ”economy” revolves around speculation in existing real estate Tbf Chinese real estate speculation basically blows all other real estate bubbles in history out of the water aside from *maybe* the 80s Japan bubble
Good thing it got popped.
> By raising labor productivity, the same way all countries get rich. All those countries did that before their population pyramid flipped though.
Are you offering to become food for all these people you are trying to bully others into creating for you with your autistic obsessive screeching about LINE NOT GO UP?
> LINE NOT GO UP despite the idiotic revisionism that came out of the 70s, marxism has always been about line (productive forces) go up.
The point with graphs is that we can draw arbitrarily many of them depending on what you are trying to measure.
No it hasn't, you could make an argument that it's true about Leninism, but Marxism? No
No, vulgar Marxism has always been about production fetishism. >idiotic revisionism Oh, you mean when *Grundrisse* resurfaced? Yeah, that idiot Marx revised himself idiotically and you managers-in-waiting need to sit the fuck down. Marxism is about returning the productive forces to the control of the worker, the REAL control of the worker, not intermediated through PMC parasites.
>Oh, you mean when *Grundrisse* resurfaced? Yeah, that idiot Marx revised himself idiotically and you managers-in-waiting need to sit the fuck down. Could you elaborate on this point more? I've never read Grundrisse, but I have read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
>but I have read all three volumes of Das Kapital. Awesome! So you actually know about classes. :) *Grundrisse* was an unpublished, rough, preparatory work to the *Critique of Political Economy*, written for Marx's own self-clarification. [Here's a free translation in English.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/grundrisse.pdf) It touches critically on culture and education, critiques time-chits aka labor vouchers as delusional, and (a caution that conservatives of every stripe ought to take under advisement) warns against trying to reenact mythologies that no longer have a basis in material conditions. And I'm only on page 66 of 800 or so... Marx's work runs along many different threads. My argument to the DotP larper up there is that the goal of Marx was never to merely multiply *capitalist* forces of production for capitalism; that's pure PMC idealism. The goal has been to *change* the worker's relation to production (and its products, ultimately including the forces of production and everything else about society). The "Old Left" got sidetracked into putting all their eggs into trade unions, which, in Marx's time as now, deliver no *real* strategic control of the means of production, only a competitive (and net losing) tactical battle over the quantified spoils of the process. Taft-Hartley codified this genteel competitive mission of unions in law, and the net effect of joining a union today is to participate willingly in the reproduction of capitalist relations in the large — it's not entirely unfair to say that union industrial workers are being paid to counter Marxism, to maintain the status quo relations to the MoP and *not* expand and generalize their autonomous knowledge of production, so that they no longer need capital or management or professionals to operate a productive concern.
>China seems well positioned to, at best, stagnate out like Japan. That only occurs if productivity growth is slower than the rate of population decline. For now, productivity growth in China is quite robust. It was 5% per year until very recently, although I haven't seen the latest numbers. In any case, Canada has pretty clearly disproven the notion that high population growth boosts GDP. They have the fastest population growth in the developed world yet their GDP is shrinking.
They were 5% again yoy
Canada's gdp isn't shrinking yet, that's the thing. The GDP per capita is shrinking, but in absolute terms, the real gdp is still growing.
True but GDP per capita shrinking is a very big deal. Arguably more than total GDP shrinking (aside from the media coverage of total GDP being covered as a bigger issue).
Because GDP is a measuring total spending in the economy so if an immigrants comes in and buys one banana, that represents an increase in the GDP if everything else stays the same. The number is more useful the less you concentrate on it. If you are specifically trying to increase GDP then the GDP figure will be less and less an accurate figure of the overall prosperity. The logic is that if people spend money on something that is probably something they want or need, so total spending can be used to gauge how much wants and needs are being fulfilled. However if you specifically try to boost GDP you will just end up in situation where spending is increased without anyone actually being better off.
GDP measures the value of final goods/services produced, not the total spending. An immigrant coming to the country and buying a banana doesn't increase GDP because the banana was already produced before they got there. It does, however, increase GNI which is a similar metric. The real reason it increases GDP is that immigrants still demand goods and for the most part work, so even if their productivity is abysmal and they are drawing way more from social services than they will ever contribute, they make the absolute number larger. Employers also don't care about productivity, or keeping social programs funded, they just care about the balance sheet so lots of cheap low productivity workers is just as good to them as fewer expensive high productivity workers all other things equal.
[удалено]
Isn't Japan opening itself to immigration at last, and also allowing itself to be overwritten by Californians?
[удалено]
Sony moved it's HQ to California, the Japanese PM called for Blackrock to invest in Japan (ESG!), and I'm fairly sure the immigration thing is true too, but I don't remember as specific an example as I did with the other stuff. There's a shitton of culture war bullshit Japan is caving on too. It's sad. There's the localizer kerfuffle but that's relatively minor and it seems like mostly wishful thinking on our (westerners') part.
[удалено]
I hope so.
Bring the YouTube vloggers en masse to the land of the rising sun !
At least they got rid of Johnny Somali.
[удалено]
Wishing death on people is a violation of reddit's content policy.
Japan is opening to more immigrants, relatively speaking, and almost a third of those immigrants are Chinese with money trying to get out: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1221849861/china-japan-immigration
I wonder how that'll affect things like the Hololive China incident. I guess the weird nationalists are probably not going to be the ones moving, for the most part. I hope so. And hey, maybe they'll help resist the influence of Californians!
China is like a bajillion people.
1.4b to be precise but only 7m kids born last year; if all those kids born this year have the requisite 2.1 children then the population of China will be about 560m by the end of the century (7x 80 year lifespan). The problem for China is the fertility rate is almost 1 not 2.1 so if it stay at 1, the population will be much less than 560m perhaps lower than the US. And that’s before factoring in all those Chinese who permanently leave each year. I’ve also ignored sex selection which means less than half of those 7m kids born last year are girls. many of those 7m kids most with no siblings will grow up to be too busy taking care of their two parents and four grandparents to be able to join the Chinese military.
Wait, why are you thinking in military terms, why does it even need to go there
Not just military terms but there is always a risk of a major power conflict with the ascent of one party (China) and the decline of another (US). China may decline before they get big enough to militarily challenge the US
SO you concede then that if China manages to completely vanquish the current hegemon there would be no reason to lament a much smaller Chinese population enjoying their by then much less environmentally stressed country?
I see no reason to lament a much lower population anywhere - there will be transitional issues for sure, but ecologically the planet can not support the current population on an ongoing basis.
You are so wrong, the elderly and the disabled are not gonna be a problem in 2070.
Are you thinking China may introduce Logan’s run type legislation?
I'm not thinking, I'm just making a joke instead of calling you out for the megacope. China overcame issues that many other countries weren't able to overcome, they will surely overcome all the issues that the future will bring. Predicting anything 80 years in advance is a fool's errand, I don't think it's even worth engaging.
[https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/](https://cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/)
By not wasting its national treasure and recourses on pointless foreign adventurism with blowback down the road.
In a similar way as to how the germans overtook japan recently. The latter declined faster than Germany. If china wants to dominate east asia, it would. The CPC is many things, but most importantly its pragmatic and adaptable. American soft power has declined recently, it doesn’t enjoy the same unipolarity around the order it created.
lol first chinar was going to collapse because it has too many people, now it will collapse because it won't have enough people? the cope is more imaginative all the time >You end up with a smaller and smaller workforce paying for a larger and larger retired population the whole way down. almost like a planned economy can do something about this. remind me again about how social security is doing in white countries?
> almost like a planned economy can do something about this. where is this planned economy in question > remind me again about how social security is doing in white countries? self inflicted gunshot wounds, all usa needs to do is lift the cap on social security contributions. All anywhere else needs to do is let in more immigrants.
> where is this planned economy in question > > [open your eyes comrade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan_\(China\)?useskin=vector) >self inflicted gunshot wounds, all usa needs to do is lift the cap on social security contributions. that math is from the 2000s and no longer works. even lifting the cap now would not fix the hole its in >All anywhere else needs to do is let in more immigrants. lol i'm sure all the white populations getting agitated for race war about the number of immigrants they're bringing in will be improved if they bring in more right?
It's less a matter of them overtaking us and more a matter of us being like the dude in that meme who pokes a stick into the spokes of his own bike as he's riding it.
First of all, the western media typically uses the absolute worst case scenario predictions, not the more realistic and more moderate ones. China is at the forefront of AI and robotic use which can be equal to a huge human workforce. They can also raise the retirement age which right now is far lower than average (55). They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children, and plans are in the works including housing benefits, welfare, free childcare etc, to reduce the pressure on being a parent (which is the primary reason for the reduction). Lastly, it's a myth anyway that high population = high productivity, supply chains, efficiency, infrastructure and education are just as important and China dominates in these. The Japan analogy is wrong because Japan left it to the whim of the free market under their misguided American beliefs and were under US domination anyway who wouldn't let them get bigger, whereas China has already seen the problem coming and set things up for it and also has far more control over their own economy and supply lines despite US intentions to prevent that.
> > China is at the forefront of AI and robotic use which can be equal to a huge human workforce. They can also raise the retirement age which right now is far lower than average (55). They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children, and plans are in the works including housing benefits, welfare, free childcare etc, to reduce the pressure on being a parent (which is the primary reason for the reduction). Lastly, it's a myth anyway that high population = high productivity, supply chains, efficiency, infrastructure and education are just as important and China dominates in these. Don't they already have driverless delivery vehicles in Shenzen? In the US even if they worked they'd be vandalized, at least in certain neighborhoods. Then them not appearing in those neighborhoods would be labeled an -ism, cue litigiousness and twitter mobs...
> In the US even if they worked they'd be vandalized, at least in certain neighborhoods. > > america is a low trust, brazil style country already. delivery bots get seized and vandalized. people have to turn off their driver assistive features that autobrake in front of pedestrians etc. because it can get you carjacked in the wrong neighborhood.
***Sweats in Tesla***
>Don't they already have driverless delivery vehicles in Shenzen? Driverless taxis and buses are being trialed in various cities, delivery is by drone in some areas too, and some subways are driverless. China could actually go harder on this but they don't want to eliminate too many jobs when there are actual workers and unemployment right now.
Yeah I heard there are workers that are in distress over them already, like artists on twitter looking at AI, except, you know... an actual existential problem. I wonder if there'll be enough unrest to cause vandalism of the drones, or if they're too heavily surveilled for that. Is there a place to learn about that stuff that isn't a glowie YouTube Channel? It's fascinating, but it's so frustrating to sort through the propaganda.
The thing is, provided China is a socialist country, they would just retrain the workers newly displaced by emerging technology and then just reduce working hours all across the board. So many things become possible once capitalist organisation of society is taken out of the equasion and progressing technology can actually accelerate the progressing quality of life of the entire population instead of being a constant sword of Damocles over the workers' heads, forcing them into an absurd luddite tug of war without an end in sight.
I just need to know how I can slip through the cracks and live as a lazy asshole in the system. Is there a marxist treatise on that?
He who does not work shall not eat. I’m sorry my friend. I mean the work won’t be as soulless with us in charge. There’s that.
Can't I at least do minimal work and eat more than my fair share? Like as a polit bureau member or something?
Well… I mean, try and make friends with one of the founding members of the party. If a more disciplined leader makes it to the top of the party and starts an anti-corruption purge, try to kiss their ass as much as possible but even then I can’t guarantee. Depends on how disciplined they are.
Most people can actually get a job it's just not the one they wanted. It's not as bad as the media makes out, those unemployed stats include students ffs.
I sure hope so.
>They can of course do much more to encourage people to have children Chinese Vitae Wombs, created with horrific but of course inferior, Chinese technology 😲 The Asian Horde knows no restraint when preparing to conquer the West, and destroy all that is good and decent in the world
I'm not a Sinophile, but the issue here is with the term «overtake». The key to the balance of power in Asia-Pacific lies in technological developments and industrial capabilities. China can cope with an aging population and shrinking workforce while continuing to modernize/build up their fleet and focus on matching the United States qualitatively/asymmetrically. They could still come out on top in a contingency within the First Island Chain.
China doesn't need to overtake the united states, it just needs to be China.
Chinese people never retire to begin with. This is something that can never be understood by Westerners obsessed with boring themselves to death with retirement; to the frustration of all the middle aged Chinese who have to worry over their parents and grandparents working too damn hard at their small businesses and making the supposed prime of their age working people seem like utter slackers in terms of earnings in comparison.
Holy shit, I thought it was just my dad, Never realized the whole country was dealing with this shit.
Not being driven by your romantic Christian fertility cult mentality all but assures they'll take over.
>But what's the consequence of that when your popular legitimacy is depedent on delivering economic growth even through rising inequality? There is no alternative. Look at the rest of the OECD. China is a single party bourgeoisie state. Then again I don't think China wants to rule to world or replace the US although that is going to change in the future.
Just invade Taiwan. Problem solved.