Live data from Hacker News

Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

neican.org

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#51
Speculative but tangential news on potential education reforms informed by common prosperity.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1449798894708305922.html

My 2C is Xi's diagnosis is basically correct. This paragraph in particular:

>We must plan, and navigate between needs and possibilities. We must base the protection and improvement of the livelihood of the people on economic development and financial sustainability rather than unrealistic pursuits and expectations, and promises that cannot be fulfilled. The government cannot take care of everything. Its focus should be on strengthening the construction of people’s livelihood guarantees that are fundamental and universal. Even if we reach a higher level of development and acquire stronger financial resources in the future, we should not set aims that are excessively high, and/or provide excessive guarantees. We must resolutely prevent [ourselves] from falling into the trap of nurturing lazy people through “welfarism.”

PRC won't reach west's living standards any time soon. Trying to build culture for generating "strong men" in anticipation for increasingly "hard times" because "good times" will never be that good for majority of people. This was always reality, PRC has too many people to uplift, and difficult external conditions. Simply not enough resources in world to propel 1.4B to western living standards, not even considering geopolitics of securing that much resources. This is PRC planning to crush gilded age, proposing a New Deal and attempting to nurthure greatest generation.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#52
post #30

TL;DR. Is there an executive summary?

Here is an attempt: We have work to do in order to achieve common prosperity. Hard work should be the means to prosperity and there should be no excessively rich people or people being allowed to give up and "lie flat". Communist economics will remain the backbone with the state owning all and allowing people and companies to lease, allocate, and trade properties only for constructive operations. Economic growth shou…

Thank you!

Sounds like it's mainly about soaking the rich, with a bit of "spiritual well being" goop thrown in.

> with the state owning all and allowing people and companies to lease, allocate, and trade properties

Well, that's how it is in the UK - all land is ultimately owned by the queen. The rest of us are all vassals. I thought there was something similar in US land-ownership law.

But we're not communist.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#53
post #26
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe what China understands is that it is in the fight of its life against decadence. It correctly sees decadence as the product of liberalism, something that afflicts dying societies as they transition to some new illiberal regime. In that new, illiberal regime, the CCP will (most likely) not be in charge, and Chinese society as a whole may not survive as a united entity. Now liberalism starts by people who no…

You seem to believe that "Confucianism" is dead in China. It's really not. Officially the state follows some sort of Marxist/Communist-derived ideology, but culturally Confucian elements are very much still alive. You can read all about how the Chinese and CCP tried to discard the old ways in the 20th century, but that doesn't really capture the nuances of what actually happened. Japan and (South) Korea are good exam…

Also, Christianity is growing with almost 100,000,000 members in the next decade or two. It will soon have more followers than in the EU.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#54
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand which part of this is not materialism?

It is materialist in the phylosophical sense in that it puts material in the somewhat dominant position to ideas. It is clearly not a material anthropology, nor is the history being brought forth the history of stuff, it's clearly about the relationships people build when helping each other. It's also clear that the word "alienation" retains its original meaning - he is talking about the psychological disconnect betw…

It is not to “clearly” visible to me that this is not a materialist anthropology. It was his explicit purpose in TGI to strip the concept of human nature of its ideal dimension, meaning Platonic, humanistic, moral, ethico-religious, unscientific “mystifications,” in order to reveal man’s species-being as a social animal, distinct from the other animals only in its capacity for (social) self-actualization through labor. Even in your own excerpt, our social relations are described in terms of relations of production (which can be more or less satisfying).

Is it perhaps this aspect of his thought which is preserved in the affluent, technological, society, and which brings alienation, as a lapse from an ideal, normative order of being, to its extreme pitch?

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#55
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is materialist in the phylosophical sense in that it puts material in the somewhat dominant position to ideas. It is clearly not a material anthropology, nor is the history being brought forth the history of stuff, it's clearly about the relationships people build when helping each other. It's also clear that the word "alienation" retains its original meaning - he is talking about the psychological disconnect betw…

It is not to “clearly” visible to me that this is not a materialist anthropology. It was his explicit purpose in TGI to strip the concept of human nature of its ideal dimension, meaning Platonic, humanistic, moral, ethico-religious, unscientific “mystifications,” in order to reveal man’s species-being as a social animal, distinct from the other animals only in its capacity for (social) self-actualization through labo…

Ideal dimension did not mean "humanistic, moral". It can certainly refer to the religious dimension of the ethic, but humanism and morals are certainly not rejected by materialist philosophy! In fact, Marx drew heavily on Fuerbach, which was one of the most preeminent humanists. Perhaps the confusion lies with the idea of anthropological materialism, meaning materialism centered around humanist goals.

In the excerpt, social relations are not described as being only relations of productions, it's merely that relations of production are the ones being talked about. But it is clear to anyone that the relations of production are some of the most important and indeed most of our social relations are relations of production. But certainly, it's the non-material relations which are the focus here, not the actual product.

As far as the species-being of humans being only different from animals insofar as we can self-actualize through labor, this is a bit of a reduction. Self-actualization through labour, where labour is any productive act, done for any imagined purpose - it's more than the productive act, it's the creativity and freedom with which that act is taken that to Marx distinguish human from animal. Clearly this difference assumes to human a unique creative, free, conscious aspect, so while to Marx this is made evident through these creative acts, these acts differentiate us because they embody our creativity, consciousness, and freedom, not merely because of their product. In that Marx is no different from the humanists before him, he simply focuses on the expression of human nature on the set of all social relations that make it evident. The reason why he does this is because he believes that human nature expresses itself differently depending on the circumstance, and so that appealing on a Platonic ideal of human nature that is absolutely perfect and unchanging is incorrect, therefore he refers to species-being as the current embodiment of human nature.

To go back to your earlier point, yes, it is a way of understanding the human without any Platonic, religious, or mystical ready-made truth. But it is at the same time humanistic and moral. There is no denial of the freedom, the feelings, the subjectivity and the relationships of people, instead they are actually central, and they are instead understood through the material world where they express themselves. What is denied is the existence of a perfect, idealized, untouchable component to these things that is completely separate and inscrutable from the material world.

So if the objection to the theory of alienation is that it sees all social relations as ultimately based on "stuff", that is not the case, which is why Marx makes a distinction between social relations writ large and social relations.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#56
post #19

One thing I find difficult to reconcile is China’s apparent success in adopting capitalist, free market principles set against manifestos like this, which talk about building a great “socialist state”. Is that label meaningless intentionally? Is it a sincerely held (but misguided) belief? Is it simply a preview of how China plans to ultimately take (forceful) public ownership of the fruits of private industry and inn…

If you think that’s chilling, read the essay “Engineering the Human Soul” ( https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in ), by a long-time Australian China-watcher. He asserts that Xi Jinping though follows in a direct line from Stalin and Mao.

To the rest of us, "follows in a direct line from Stalin" is not a recommendation...

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#57

One thing I find difficult to reconcile is China’s apparent success in adopting capitalist, free market principles set against manifestos like this, which talk about building a great “socialist state”. Is that label meaningless intentionally? Is it a sincerely held (but misguided) belief? Is it simply a preview of how China plans to ultimately take (forceful) public ownership of the fruits of private industry and inn…

> One thing I find difficult to reconcile is China’s apparent success in adopting capitalist, free market principles set against manifestos like this, which talk about building a great “socialist state”. Is that label meaningless intentionally?

Like any politician, they talk out of both sides of their mouth: promising the "best of both worlds" to try to make both sides happy. Dare I say it? "Synergy"...ugh, I need marketing shower now.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#58
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an attempt: We have work to do in order to achieve common prosperity. Hard work should be the means to prosperity and there should be no excessively rich people or people being allowed to give up and "lie flat". Communist economics will remain the backbone with the state owning all and allowing people and companies to lease, allocate, and trade properties only for constructive operations. Economic growth shou…

Thank you! Sounds like it's mainly about soaking the rich, with a bit of "spiritual well being" goop thrown in. > with the state owning all and allowing people and companies to lease, allocate, and trade properties Well, that's how it is in the UK - all land is ultimately owned by the queen. The rest of us are all vassals. I thought there was something similar in US land-ownership law. But we're not communist.

Some analysis:

The first major business cycle ever is hitting modern China hard an has people seriously freaked out. The price of houses never goes down some still say. Sure, so then your currency takes the hit. This is going to be rough, and combined with damage from tragic natural disasters there is the possibility of unrest and change in China.

The references to avoid too much welfare, laziness, and lying flat show the government is seriously freaked out by the young generation simply not working with the same frenetic pacing and lack of restraint that used to be present broadly in Chinese labor.

Emphasizing Communist Party ownership of property and management of the economy and riches means a heavy hand will be used whenever deemed necessary.

It is also worth pointing out that this endorses health care access and improvement of rural areas but has not particular way of accomplishing this. Also, the heavy hand and emphasis on hard work is arguably in opposition to calls for innovation which is often driven by people taking risks in order to achieve great wealth both of which are now strongly discouraged.

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#59
post #8

One thing I find difficult to reconcile is China’s apparent success in adopting capitalist, free market principles set against manifestos like this, which talk about building a great “socialist state”. Is that label meaningless intentionally? Is it a sincerely held (but misguided) belief? Is it simply a preview of how China plans to ultimately take (forceful) public ownership of the fruits of private industry and inn…

I believe what China understands is that it is in the fight of its life against decadence. It correctly sees decadence as the product of liberalism, something that afflicts dying societies as they transition to some new illiberal regime. In that new, illiberal regime, the CCP will (most likely) not be in charge, and Chinese society as a whole may not survive as a united entity. Now liberalism starts by people who no…

I don't really have the perfect word here to describe this post, but it's essentially the intersection of projection/posturing and arm-chair analysis. Not intended to be mean/personal, just an observation.

I get a sense rsj_hn is America due to how they vaguely point to "old morality", liberalism has its root in the Age of Enlightenment, which ironically enough was a reaction to the very stale and constricting status quo of an aristocratic elite whose rules was excused and exceptionalism compared to the common man/woman (i.e. it's okay for aristocrats to have a massive amount of wealth/decadence but not for anyone else).

Christianity was very "disruptive" in the west, since the original intention more or less from the roman's perspective was to have an institution closely affiliated with the elite/those in power to "control" the population, i.e. the catholic church.

Since before Europe was very much into their reformed-tribal polytheism (Asatru, Hellenism, etc.).

The ironic twist to blaming liberalism is that Christians themselves reacted negatively to this forced imposition, i.e. the protestant reformation, which was a reaction from the kings/queens that the pope should have no saying in how a king/queen should rule or start a war.

Hell your idea itself seems more compatible with the old tribal religions (pre-reformed tribal Greece had some very strict religious laws & for example believed that ancestors were tied to the land they settled on and thus you were not allowed to sell your land).

Lastly, liberalism itself has a foundation but it isn't "bundled" with decadence or with anything beyond its ethics and ideals, just like any other ideology.

Since otherwise please explain your logic over why then there is:

- Social liberalism

- Conservative liberalism

- Neoliberalism

- Classical liberalism

- National liberalism

- Country-specific liberalism (think Japan's Liberal Democratic Party or Constitution Democratic Party)

China's fight against "decadence" has more to with certain "ideals" Xi Jinping believes in (if you read his letter you'll notice he's quite nostalgic/hard believer in worker-oriented socialism instead of a more western interpretation of socialism) & pushing back against anything that isn't "home-grown", which is something Xi Jinping also is a very big supporter of (CCP does these patriotic displays of showing how patriotic/good it is to only buy national products only).

Re: Translation of Xi Jinping's "To Firmly Drive Common Prosperity" Essay

#60
post #7

"Common Prosperity" is a marketing label to try to legitimize persecution of high tech billionaires who own platforms whose success/failure could destabilize the government. All of the major Chinese tech companies have created "Common Prosperity" funds now, which are essentially direct money transfers to the CCP for it to implement whatever agenda they have at the moment.

Fundamentally, that seems like common sense. Government's utility and legitimacy is powered by its own mass and influence in society. Many states have done a very poor job of securing that position.

If you start to get individuals and businesses so wealthy or influential that they can make the state quiver, eventually the government's mandates are at risk. Can it effectively regulate businesses that are too big to fail? Does it maintain the monopoly on violence if the wealthy can DoS the legal system to escape prosecution for their wrongdoings?

Post reply on HN