Biden was already a fascist. Trump just makes the fascism more visually aparant.

It worked, thanks buddy

Will try once I extract my personal files from the system into a USB

The world’s second-largest economy added roughly 277 gigawatts of solar last year, surpassing the previous year’s record of 217 gigawatts, the National Energy Administration said in a statement on Tuesday. It also added nearly 80 gigawatts of wind, according to the statement.

The pace of renewable power installation in China will likely slow in the next few years as delays to grid infrastructure upgrades and limited land availability pose challenges to project development, according to BloombergNEF.

Still, the country is expected to add 273 gigawatts of solar and 94 gigawatts of wind in 2025

These 3 statements taken together are contradictory. The pace of adding renewables will slow down, but in 2025 we will still see more renewables added than in 2024?

I mean, to be fair, I’ve seen more substanceless paragraphs from liberals.

I see, if you are not a native English speaking, then I apologise (this is partly why I don’t like bot accusations).

Marxism teaches us to question everything to see if they serve the working class or just maintain power.

But this power itself could very well be working class power. Maintaining such power would not be a problem, and indeed should be the goal of socialist education.

When I say ‘challenge power structures,’ I mean education should help people understand class struggle and how to improve society, not just obey the system blindly.

Again, teaching children to blindly obey authority figures is not something you can accuse Chinese society of doing without actually compiling and analysing data/evidence.

This isn’t about imposing some ‘Euro-centric’ idea but asking if education is helping build socialism or just keeping things the same. It’s an universal issue.

Universalism itself is a rather euro-centric idea. The European colonists were eager to declare their ideas as universal and to apply them to other societies.

The only way to actually address issues in Chinese society is to first investigate into specific details in Chinese societies. Making general claims/questions is not helpful. Especially not when they are made against a country with one of the richest surviving marxist traditions.

I don’t like accusing people of being bots, but damn is this comment written in chatgpt’s writing style.

I have a better question. What specific part of Chinese education do you believe is so problematic that it undermines socialism?

Because otherwise we are just blowing smoke clouds past each.

China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote?

Why ask questions when you intend to answer them yourself and are most likely (speaking from experience) going to ignore any answers received?

True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures

The first part is true but the second part is not. The second part presupposes that whatever power structures are in place must always be challenged. You are imposing your own ideology in education. And I know that you are not talking about criticizing or improving the power structures, but rebelling against them because of your next sentence.

but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.

Basically, you want chinese education to become a tool for your euro-centric ideology to forment civil disobedience, in service of your euro-centric goals.

As Marxist theory teaches us

What Marxist theory theory actually teaches us is that we must be critical of everything, including our own biases and circumstances. You are applying your own ideology, developed under the experience of capitalist dictatorship to a socialist society.

China’s shift to innovation is therefore not a question of strategy but rather if material conditions and the shift to innovation will emerge only in so far as it is made possible and feasible by labor participation in domestic enrichment, natural resource sovereignty, and development of globally-known technologies that lack uncertainties.

This is exactly the case. China has developed to the point where it can seriously consider a change in priorities. Of course, the overall course is still to race towards prosperous socialism but with changing material conditions* come changing tactics.

*the big one being Chinese labor becoming more expensive and Chinese industry becoming highly automated.

Well, in this case, they do have a valid point, in that the growth that China experienced was due to high amounts of capital investment rather than innovation per say. And as we know from the labor theory of value, high amounts of capital investment comes from a correspondingly high amount of the workforce being employed in producing the means of production (rather than consumption).

But to this point, there are 3 rebuttals

1. Xi has made it a point to shift from factor based growth to innovation based growth
2. An an underdeveloped country, China needs high growth in capital. The criticism about factor based growth only applies to fully developed countries. Lifting 800 million people out of poverty is proof that factor driven growth was the correct path for China to take
3. China only became such a massive exporter of goods because the advanced capitalist countries de-industrialised. At the same time, these regions maintained high consumption due to imperialism. Chinese industry is forced to pick up the slack of America/Europe.

But that performance required enormous inputs of capital.

Obviously. That’s how the economy grows you buffoons.

The economy as a whole has fared badly on measures of “total-factor productivity” (TFP), which try to capture the growth in output that cannot be explained by increases in capital or labour.

I had a whole response typed out, but honestly, unless the article starts giving actual data and what the goals of the government were, any comment I make is just speculation.

Interestingly enough, I found a book that shows that TFP may almost be entirely a product how efficiently an economy processes energy resources. Although I doubt this is what the author of the article had in mind. Instead, they were probably thinking about some business magic racial supremacy number of something.

A different policy mix could have encouraged greater household spending, not capital spending, and flourishing services, not manufacturing muscle. These two shifts could have complemented each other nicely.

The existing policies of high capital spending and focus on manufacturing also complement each other. And have the benefit of picking up the whole world’s slack from the de-industrialisation of America/Europe/Japan.

it is difficult to imagine the Communist Party under Mr Xi pursuing a different strategy. “They basically think that rich countries are those that make stuff and the richest countries are those that make the most advanced stuff,” says Gerard DiPippo of the RAND Corporation, a think-tank.

Bruh

Yeah I know this. But how does it follow from this to trump being responsible for the ceasefire?

I don’t follow

I wonder if the ceasefire is motivated in part by the collapse of Assad’s government.