Live data from Hacker News

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

neican.org

41–50 of 60 posts

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

#41
post #23
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…

People wishing to dismiss this should look up Wang Huning. It is (as far as I can tell as a non-Chinese person relying on translations and secondary sources), a good summary of his thought. My trouble with this view, and its Western equivalents, is that viewing religion (religio, that which binds) as something “good for the commoners,” while true in its own way, is also a religion’s undoing. When the primary perceive…

It is only a simile of the thought of Wang Huning and the rest of the Politburo.

If you take Hunings' "America against America", you will see that the diagnosis for what he calls "Cultural Nihilism" (see also the CCP notion of "historical nihilism") is ultimately rooted in not much more than the orthodox concept of alienation from the economic dimension.

Hence his opposition to liberalization, moreso in the economic than social sense.

He doesn't impune the younger westerners from turning away from Religion or said broadly Tradition, but from the intellectual tradition of Europe, that is to be said, the broad current of the Enlightenment and what followed from it.

Indeed you should read Huning's impunement of liberalism as a political economy as broadly similar to Marx, with the exception that instead of Marx's general reliance on the European tradition for ethics, even appropriating the criticism of the Sophists on the basis of character, Huning would rather blend them with the Chinese tradition.

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

#42
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It correctly sees decadence as the product of liberalism Is that "correctly" yours, or are you paraphrasing some authoritarian tract? You make quite a few very strong assertions, without argument or evidence. Maybe it depends on what you mean by "liberal"; one of the meanings is "generous". Another meaning is "permissive", and another is "opposed to authoritarianism". And then there's economic liberalism, which is…

For Marx, alienation had a specific, technical definition, meaning alienation from one’s labor. In The German Ideology , Marx expounds a totally materialistic anthropology, wherein man is material which creates itself through labor, and as such, human history is the history of material. Within this anthropology, alienation does not retain the common meaning, and Marx indeed stopped referring to it in his “mature” wor…

That is quite incorrect. Marx understands the act of production as an act that allows you to interrogate your own existence, and its relation to the existence of others - how you fit in to their lives, and in the shared experience that you have with those that use your production. Straight from the horse's mouth :

>Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (i) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (ii) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.

Marx, "Comment on James Mill", 1844.

Here we can see that there is an explicit social dimension to alienation - it is far from the "totally materialistic anthropology" you attribute.

Indeed Marx recongizes a purely material dimension from alienation, but in his texts this is only a small part of it - he explicitly identifies the purely material alienation as causing the alienation from the act of production, the alienation from the act of production causing alienation from one's own essence (Marx understands working for the benefit of others as being part of the human essence, insofar as helping a friend, working for mutual survival, that helps situate the social circumstance in the act of actually doing something, so the act of producing for wages instead of production to help someone, to help oneself or for expression as inherently against the essence of humanity) , and finally this process in the reverse causing alienation from the community.

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

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Marx, alienation had a specific, technical definition, meaning alienation from one’s labor. In The German Ideology , Marx expounds a totally materialistic anthropology, wherein man is material which creates itself through labor, and as such, human history is the history of material. Within this anthropology, alienation does not retain the common meaning, and Marx indeed stopped referring to it in his “mature” wor…

That is quite incorrect. Marx understands the act of production as an act that allows you to interrogate your own existence, and its relation to the existence of others - how you fit in to their lives, and in the shared experience that you have with those that use your production. Straight from the horse's mouth : > Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways,…

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

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

#44
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People wishing to dismiss this should look up Wang Huning. It is (as far as I can tell as a non-Chinese person relying on translations and secondary sources), a good summary of his thought. My trouble with this view, and its Western equivalents, is that viewing religion (religio, that which binds) as something “good for the commoners,” while true in its own way, is also a religion’s undoing. When the primary perceive…

It is only a simile of the thought of Wang Huning and the rest of the Politburo. If you take Hunings' "America against America", you will see that the diagnosis for what he calls "Cultural Nihilism" (see also the CCP notion of "historical nihilism") is ultimately rooted in not much more than the orthodox concept of alienation from the economic dimension. Hence his opposition to liberalization, moreso in the economic…

I will do that, thank you.

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

#45
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is quite incorrect. Marx understands the act of production as an act that allows you to interrogate your own existence, and its relation to the existence of others - how you fit in to their lives, and in the shared experience that you have with those that use your production. Straight from the horse's mouth : > Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways,…

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 between people and their community and the breakdown of their relationships.

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

#46
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.

"though" -> thought

>a speech he gave at an internal Australian government seminar in August 2017.

So, a bit dated, but lays out cultural history in amazing detail.

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

#47

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…

Stephen Kotkin is an interesting historian that (I think) would argue that China's govt is still very much communist and perhaps that their adoption of capitalist ideas were a necessary compromise and not a rejection of their former ideals

Well, the pure communism was leading to very slow development and many people still in poverty. Communism wasn't getting them to a socialist paradise. So they adopted capitalism to get their economy going, and that got people wanting capitalism and operating in a capitalist way and with a capitalist mindset. Now they want to keep the capitalist prosperity but have everyone want socialism, think socialism and do socialism.

It remains to be seen whether that is possible; I suspect that the answer is "no". I suspect that they're going to kill the capitalist prosperity by this. But we'll see.

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

#48
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Tax the Rich. This essay could have come from any given Twitter "intelligentsia" in America today with only a select few terms changed.

It's more nuanced than that. In America calls for raising taxes are usually in the name of some public good, eg infrastructure. How true that is is up to personal interpretation. In China it's purely about power, namely removing any semblance of power held by non government entities.

Well, no, in China it's in the name of socialism - of the prosperity and well-being of the less well off. How true that is is not really up for personal interpretation - it's just false. (Of course, one could argue the same about the US...)

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

#49
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"though" -> thought >a speech he gave at an internal Australian government seminar in August 2017. So, a bit dated, but lays out cultural history in amazing detail.

CCP proposes to think on the 50 year scale, so this is last week for them :)

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

#50

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…

Stephen Kotkin is an interesting historian that (I think) would argue that China's govt is still very much communist and perhaps that their adoption of capitalist ideas were a necessary compromise and not a rejection of their former ideals

Communist ideals didn’t work because of free loaders. They had to adopt capitalism because they were starving to death by the millions.

Eventually reasoned ideology bows to reality.

Post reply on HN