Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

Xi Jinping’s 3.5 hour speech before the 19th CPC National Congress is actually a succinct introduction to China’s road-map for the future

Xi Jinping’s speech was longsighted, but most importantly thoroughly doable, based on China’s impressive track record.

Published

on

4,241 Views

Chinese President Xi Jinping has addressed the opening session of the 19th Communist Party Congress. Thus far, the most ubiquitous comments about the speech relate to its monumental length, which ran over three and a half hours.

While enduring such a lengthy speech is not particularly easy, in hindsight, Xi’s speech represents a markedly succinct summary of China’s contemporary achievements while offering an easily understood road-map for China and indeed her partners, for the remainder of the 21st century. When trying to condense and synthesise over 100 aggregate years of past successes and future planning, listening to three and an half hours of a speech is actually far briefer than the copious policy documents and analysis that one might otherwise have to read in order to garner such essential information.

Because of this, many western mainstream media outlets have decided to hide the full speech, blaming its length for the fact that in reality, many such “journalists” do not wish to confront China’s rise to its position as a foremost superpower in the modern world.

Here, you can watch the full speech. Below the video I shall illustrate what I felt were the most important points:

Xi Jinping’s address was framed by the theme of his Presidency: the further development of Marxism with Chinese characteristics. This essentially means embracing traditional Chinese cultural and socio-economic habits within the context of the market socialist economic pioneered by Deng Xiaoping who was Chin’a paramount leader from 1978-1989.

The most revolutionary aspect of the speech included a commitment to build on China’s industrial, infrastructural and financial progress to make China an ever more prosperous country internally. While words like “luxury” still carry some stigma in the context of a Communist Party, in reality, Xi was promising just that.

As Chinese workers have laboured tirelessly to transform China from a struggling agrarian economy to a thriving economy that will soon fully overtake the US in terms of total economic power (in many other areas, China has overtaken the US some time ago), Xi illustrated that now it is the time for Chinese men and women to enjoy more of the benefits of the wealth they created.

To achieve this, Xi spoke of several stages of developing “great modern socialism”, the natural outgrowth from the market socialism of Deng.

Practically, this will require two things. First of all, One Belt–One Road will help to connect the Chinese model of economic growth with other dynamic and growing economies throughout multiple global regions. The outward looking concept behind One Belt–One Road is critical to Xi’s idea of a China that will be not only open but more open than ever before. By sharing the Chinese experience with others and linking economies of the world, China is creating a world in which developing countries can enhance their productivity while crucially maintaining full political independence. Secondly, Xi has a wide ranging programme designed to pivot China’s internal investment from primarily infrastructure based projects to projects which improve the micro-management of daily life. In many ways, such programmes at an urban level, are already well under way.

China’s reticence to intervene in the political issues of foreign countries was in fact a recurring theme of Xi’s speech. This was designed to reassure China’s new partners, but it also is part of a wider declaration that in the Chinese dominated 21st century, this will be an organic economic dominance and a dominance in terms of available resources, but not one of imperialistic, political nor ideological dominance. In many ways, there is no better place to assure partners of China’s lack of interest in exporting ideology than during a Communist Party Congress. In this sense, it was made clear that China’s ideological dialectics are meant only for China and not partners. In a single phrase, one could summarise this as: “Great modern socialism in one-state and One Belt–One Road for all independent partners”. To put it another way, “Many political systems, one common goal of prosperity”.

Between the present day and the year 2020, China will work to solidify economic and social gains for the last decade, something which will be capped-off by the completion of the modernisation project for the People’s Liberation Army in 2020, as well as enhanced efforts to totally eliminate rural poverty and expand modern agriculture and industrial sectors outside of China’s modern urban regions.

Between 2020 and 2035, China will work to build a country that is “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful”. In more practical terms, this means a country wherein real Chinese living standards continue to increase, while conditions remain free of the peaks and troughs that have plagued western societies in recent decades.

While capitalists often criticise socialist countries for lacking sufficient luxury items and leisurely pursuits for citizens and where inversely many socialists criticise capitalist countries for making culture inaccessible and stable living impossible, Xi’s  programme looks to offer both stability, consistently liveable residential and working environments, while also enhancing the ability of ordinary people to enrich their lives with cultural activities and the new avenues of social enhancement made possible through modern technologies which China has both braced and pioneered.

In this sense, China is preparing for an economic and social reality in the age of industrial mechanisation. Where many western entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk have advocated a standard “living wage” for citizens, in order to cope with increased mechanisation,  Xi’s proposals effectively guarantee the shared and even distribution of China’s immense wealth through a programme of direct investment into people and their social environments. In this sense, rather than pay citizens an arbitrary wage, China after 2035, will move increasingly to develop a society where wealth is transferred across society in form of manifold investments, something that will be enacted harmoniously with the coming age of  mega-mechanisation.

Part of Xi’s proposals to enhance the quality of living for Chinese, is to take care to always balance infrastructural development with ecological protections. As the country which industrialised more rapidly than any other in history, China has already begun embracing green technology, particularly in the field of energy creation, more thoroughly than any other. As China begins exporting its green technologies, Beijing will almost certainly become a global leader in this field.

Xi Jinping also spoke of the need to further assure that corruption will not implant itself in China, in spite of economic diversification and growth. He encouraged the party faithful to remain committed to traditional values while preparing the development of new ways of thinking and problem solving.

Will it work?

When taken at face value, all of Xi’s proposals are impressive. It would be difficult for anyone other than an ideologue to disagree with the over all scope of his lengthy speech.

Therefore, the biggest question remaining is: will China be able to accomplish these great feats?

The simple answer, based on China’s modern precedent, is a resounding, YES.

China has been able to create and benefit from a modern industrial revolution, a revolution in urban planning and living, a consumer revolution, a living standards revolution and a technological revolution, all in a period of about 30 to 40 years.

What remains for China is to merely build on these foundations which have been laid at a phenomenal speed, especially when one considers China’s large population and land mass.

Because all of Xi’s proposals involve a combination of internal investment, external partnerships which include new multilateral investment opportunities as well as a commitment to peace, the only way for China’s record of progress to become disrupted is through the intervention of a foreign entity.

While it is clear that the US intends to disrupt China’s external development through One Belt–One Road, what is also clear is that the unmistakable US attempts to do this, have traditionally ended in failure. Washington’s pivot to India, a clear attempt to scuttle the Sino-Pakistan alliance, has become a public embarrassment as the US is somewhat diplomatically distancing itself from New Dheli after it became clear that India does not think leaping into America’s Afghan disaster is prudent. This further limits India’s long term options, if New Delhi fails to join Russia and Pakistan along One Belt–One Road. Although, the US came out with some highly pro-Indian statements on the same day as Xi’s speech, the timing and nature of the remarks indicate that it may be more of a last gasp of a dead-end policy than a full revitalisation.

In terms of South East Asia, the prolonged crises in Myanmar appears as though it is being managed internally. The danger is that the US could still internationalise the conflicts in Myanmar, in the hopes of creating a roadblock to China’s partnerships in South East Asia. Elsewhere, in South East Asia though, Philippines may soon became a joint success story for both Manila and Beijing as early this year Xi Jinping hailed a “golden era” of relations between the former US colony and China, something made possible by President Rodrigo Duterte’s pivot away from Washington and closer to both China and Russia. China is also set to build a large new district in  Manila, which will act as a modern showcase for Philippines in the 21st century and beyond.

In terms of the Middle East, while the US has caused major devastation, there are now more countries willing and able to work with China than ever before. This includes countries as diverse as Iran and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

China’s recent opening of a military logistics base in Djibouti ,also looks to secure future partnerships in Africa. Furthermore, China’s warm relationship with Russia, means that two of the three world superpowers are on the same page, something which is entirely unlike the Cold War period when the USSR, China and the US had three very different agendas, each of which allowed a third party to exploit the other two.

Overall, the prognosis for Xi Jinping and his successors being able to deliver on the monumental promises made in today’s speech, seem surprisingly doable. China has shown the world that it can make the difficult happen with speeds that shock many sceptics and with an exactitude that confounds students or previous rising economic giants.

In this sense, it is not at all beyond the scope of reality that a 3.5 hour speech, may shape the next 100 years of Chinese and world history.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Denmark As A Model For American Socialists?

In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Lars Hedegard via The Gatestone Institute:


Here are some facts to consider before American “democratic socialists” look to Denmark for guidance, as Senator Bernie Sanders did during the 2016 presidential campaign.

First of all, Danes actually pay for their brand of socialism through heavy taxation. In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high. If you receive public support and are of working age and healthy enough to work, the state will require that you look for a job or it will force a job on you.

The willingness of all the Danes to pay high taxes is predicated on the country’s high degree of homogeneity and level of citizens’ trust in each other, what sociologists call “social capital.” By and large, Danes do not mind paying into the welfare state because they know that the money will go to other Danes like themselves, who share their values and because they can easily imagine themselves to be in need of help — as most of them, from time to time, will be.

Whenever politicians propose tax cuts, they are met with vehement opposition: So, you want to cut taxes? What part of the welfare state are you willing to amputate? And that ends the debate.

Danes, in contrast to American socialists gaining ground in the Democratic Party, are increasingly aware that the welfare state cannot be sustained in conditions of open immigration. A political party agitating for “no borders” could never win a Danish election. Danes do not suffer from historical guilt: they have not attacked any other country for more than two centuries and have never committed a genocide.

Moreover, there is an even deeper truth to ponder: Denmark is not really socialist but constitutes a sui generis fusion of free-market capitalism and some socialist elements. Denmark has no minimum wage mandated by law. Wages, benefits and working conditions are determined through negotiations between employers and trade unions. 67% of Danish wage-earners are members of a union, compared to 19% in Germany and 8% in France. Strikes and lockouts are common, and the government will usually stay out of labor conflicts unless the parties are unable to agree.

It is uncomplicated for enterprises to fire workers, which gives them great flexibility to adapt to shifting market conditions. To alleviate the pain, the state has in place a number of arrangements such as generous unemployment benefits and programs to retrain and upgrade redundant workers.

Danish companies must make ends meet or perish. They generally will not get handouts from the government.

Denmark is more free-market oriented than the US. According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is number 12, ahead of the United States (number 18). Venezuela is at the bottom, one place ahead of number 180, North Korea.

Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist of Denmark’s respected pro-free-market think tank CEPOS, comments:

“Very high taxes and the vast public sector clearly detract in the capitalism index and reduce economic freedom. But Denmark compensates by protecting property rights, by low corruption, relatively little regulation of private enterprise, open foreign trade, healthy public finances and more. This high degree of economic freedom is among the reasons for Denmark’s relatively high affluence.”
Trish Regan recently claimed on Fox Business that Danes pay a “federal tax rate” of 56% on their income. This is misleading. The 55.8% is the levied on the marginaltax for the top income bracket, only on the part of their income above DKK 498,900 ($76,500). Any income under DKK 498,900 is taxed at lower rates. And the 55.8% marginal rate does not represent a “federal” or “national” rate. It represents the total of all taxes on income: national tax, regional tax, municipal tax and labor market tax. It does not, however, include Denmark’s 25% value-added tax (VAT), paid on all purchases.

Regan also claimed that Danes pay a 180% tax on cars. While it is true that there was once a maximum tax of 180% on care in Denmark, the vehicle tax rates have been lowered in recent years. Today, the first DKK 185,100 ($28,400) of the price of a gas- or diesel-powered car is taxed at 85%, and if the car’s price is above DKK 185,100, the remaining amount is taxed at 150% — which is of course bad enough.

Denmark’s total tax burden amounts to 45.9% of GDP, the highest of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

As pointed out in the Fox Business segment, all education for Danes is tuition-free, all the way through to a Ph.D. Not only that; the state will, within certain time constraints, pay students to study. For students at university level no longer living with their parents, the monthly cash grant comes to almost $1,000 per month. No fewer than 325,000 students out of a total population of 5.6 million benefit from this generous arrangement setting the state back to the tune of DKK 20.9 billion or 1% of GDP (latest 2018 figures just in and supplied by Mads Lundby Hansen). Denmark even pays student support to 20,000 foreign students.

Attempts by fiscal conservatives to cut down on payments to students have been successfully resisted by the vociferous and influential student organizations; at present it would appear impossible to muster anything like a parliamentary majority to limit the student handouts.

Fox Business is right that a great many Danes are on public transfer payments. Government figures from 2017 indicate that 712,300 Danes of working age (16-64) — not including recipients of student benefits — get public financial support. But Regan’s claim that most Danes do not work is ludicrous. According to Statistics Denmark, 69.9% of Danes aged 16-64 are active in the labor market.

How can Denmark pay for its comprehensive welfare state, which includes free medical care regardless of the severity of your condition? Regan claims that Denmark is “heavily in debt.” Not so. As it turns out, Denmark is among the least indebted countries in the world, even when compared to other Western countries. The Danish government’s gross debt stands at 35.9% of GDP. Compare that to, e.g., The United Kingdom (86.3 %), The United States (108%), Belgium (101%), Canada (86.6%), France (96.3%), Germany (59.8%), The Netherlands (53.5%), Italy (129.7%), Spain (96.7%) and even Switzerland (41.9%).

Comparing Denmark to the US, Madsen notes that the latter has a problem with fiscal sustainability that may necessitate tax increases. Denmark enjoys what he labels fiscal “oversustainability” (“overholdbarhed”).

At a time when socialism appears to be popular among certain sections of the American population, its proponents would do well not to cite Denmark as a model. The Danish fusion of free-market capitalism and a comprehensive welfare state has worked because Denmark is a small country with a very homogeneous population. This economic and social model rests on more than 150 years of political, social and economic compromises between peasants and landowners, business-owners and workers, and right- and left-leaning political parties. This has led to a measure of social and political stability that would be hard to emulate in much larger and more diverse counties such as the United States.


Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Speech Society, is based in Denmark.

Continue Reading

Latest

Ron Paul: Protectionism Abroad and Socialism at Home

One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians.

Ron Paul

Published

on

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians. For example, government interference in health care increased health care costs, making it difficult or even impossible for many to obtain affordable, quality care. The effects of these prior interventions were used to justify Obamacare.

Now, the failures of Obamacare are being used to justify further government intervention in health care. This does not just include the renewed push for socialized medicine. It also includes supporting new laws mandating price transparency. The lack of transparency in health care pricing is a direct result of government policies encouraging overreliance on third-party payers.

This phenomenon is also observed in foreign policy. American military interventions result in blowback that is used to justify more military intervention. The result is an ever-expanding warfare state and curtailments on our liberty in the name of security.

Another example of this is related to the reaction to President Trump’s tariffs. Many of America’s leading trading partners have imposed “retaliatory” tariffs on US goods. Many of these tariffs target agriculture exports. These tariffs could be devastating for American farmers, since exports compose as much as 20 percent of the average farmer’s income.

President Trump has responded to the hardships imposed on farmers by these retaliatory tariffs with a 12 billion dollars farm bailout program. The program has three elements: direct payments to farmers, use of federal funds to buy surplus crops and distribute them to food banks and nutrition programs, and a new federal effort to promote American agriculture overseas.

This program will not fix the problems caused by Tramp’s tariffs. For one thing, the payments are unlikely to equal the money farmers will lose from this trade war. Also, government marketing programs benefit large agribusiness but do nothing to help small farmers. In fact, by giving another advantage to large agribusiness, the program may make it more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global marketplace.

Distributing surplus food to programs serving the needy may seem like a worthwhile use of government funds. However, the federal government has neither constitutional nor moral authority to use money taken by force from taxpayers for charitable purposes. Government-funded welfare programs also crowd out much more effective and compassionate private efforts. Of course, if government regulations such as the minimum wage and occupational licensing did not destroy job opportunities, government farm programs did not increase food prices, and the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies did not continuously erode purchasing power, the demand for food aid would be much less. By increasing spending and debt, the agriculture bailout will do much more to create poverty than to help the needy.

Agriculture is hardly the only industry suffering from the new trade war. Industries — such as automobile manufacturing — that depend on imports for affordable materials are suffering along with American exporters. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (who supports tariffs) has called for bailouts of industries negatively impacted by tariffs. He is likely to be joined in his advocacy by crony capitalists seeking another government handout.

More bailouts will only add to the trade war’s economic damage by increasing government spending and hastening the welfare–warfare state’s collapse and the rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Instead of trying to fix tariffs-caused damage through more corporate welfare, President Trump and Congress should pursue a policy of free markets and free trade for all and bailouts for none.

Continue Reading

Latest

In Monsters We Trust: US Mainstream Media No Friend of the American People

Over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day denouncing Trump, an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink.

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Over the course of his turbulent presidency, Donald Trump has accused various media companies, with special attention reserved for CNN, as being purveyors of ‘fake news.’ In one early-morning Tweet last year, he slammed the “FAKE NEWS media” as the “enemy of the people.”

This week, over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day – an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink – denouncing Trump’s insensitive portrayal of them, as if the notion that journalists were not in the same sleaze league as lawyers, politicians and professional con artists never crossed anyone’s mind before. Even the peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi recommended “equality for everyone except reporters and photographers.”

But is the MSM really an “enemy of the people?”

First, it cannot be denied that the US media, taken in all its wholesomeness, has been overwhelmingly consistent in its ‘style’ of reporting on Donald Trump, the 45th POTUS. And by consistent I mean unprecedentedly critical, misleading and outright aggressive in its guerilla coverage of him. If one is not convinced by the gloom-and-doom Trump stories featured daily in the Yahoo News feed, then a study by the Media Research Center (MRC) should do the job. From January 1 through April 30, evening news coverage of the US leader – courtesy of ABC, CBS and NBC – were 90 percent negative, which is pretty much the same incredible average revealed by MRC one year earlier.

The study looked at every one of the 1,065 network evening news stories about Trump and his administration during the first four months of 2018. Total negative news time devoted to Trump: 1,774 minutes, or about one-third of all evening news airtime. That’s pretty much the definition of a circle jerk.

“Nearly two-fifths (39%) of the TV coverage we examined focused on Trump scandals and controversies, while 45 percent was devoted to various policy issues,” MRC wrote in its report.

Meanwhile, the farcical Russia ‘collusion’ story was consistently the main grabber — clocking in at 321 minutes, or nearly one-fifth of all Trump coverage. Of the 598 statements MRC calculated about Trump’s personal scandals, virtually all of them (579, or 97%) came out of the media wash cycle tarred and feathered.

If this represents an orchestrated attack on the Commander-in-Chief, and in light of those numbers it would be difficult to argue it isn’t, the strategy appears to be falling flat. Despite, or precisely because of, the avalanche of negative media coverage, Trump’s popularity rating smashed the 50 percent ceiling in early August and continues to remain high.

In Monsters We Trust

Although it can be safely stated that the MSM is an entrenched and relentless enemy of Donald Trump, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an “enemy of the American people,” as Trump argues it is. Let’s be a bit more diplomatic and say it isn’t our friend.

One yard stick for proving the claim is to consider the steadily mounting concentration of media holdings. In 1983, 90 percent of US media were controlled by 50 companies; today, 90 percent is controlled by the Big Six (AT&TComcastThe Walt Disney Company21st Century FoxCBS and Viacom control the spoken and printed word from sea to shining sea).Although many people are aware of the monopolistic tendencies of the US mainstream media, it’s important to understand the level of concentration. It means the vast majority of everything you see and hear on any electronic device or printed publication is ‘democratically’ controlled by six average white guys and their shareholders.

However, keeping track of who owns what these days is practically impossible since the dozens of subsidiary companies that fall under each main company are themselves fiefdoms, each with their own separate holdings. In fact, the already short ‘Big Six’ list is already dated, since National Amusements, Inc. has gobbled up both Viacom and CBS, while 21st Century Fox merged with Disney this year. As for the 350 US newspapers that penned tortured editorials decrying Trump’s critical opinion of them, many of those ‘local’ publications get their marching orders from either the Hearst Communications or the Gannett Company on the East Coast.

Now, with this sort of massive power and influence lying around like dynamite, it stands to reason, or unreason, that the corporate and political worlds will succumb to the law of attraction and gravitation, forging powerful and impregnable relationships. It’s no secret that the politicians, our so-called ‘public servants,’ are mostly in the game to make a fast buck, while the corporations, desperate for ‘democratic representation’ to control regulation and market share, have an inexhaustible source of funds to secure it. Naturally, this oligarchical system precludes any sort of democratic participation from the average person on the street, who thinks just because he remembers to yank a lever once every several years he is somehow invested in the multibillion-dollar franchise.

As far as media corporations being ‘private enterprises’ and therefore free to demolish the freedom of speech (even censoring major media players, like Infowars, simply because they whistle to a different political tune), that is quickly becoming revealed as nothing more than corporate cover for state-sponsored machinations.

“In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship,” writes Caitlin Johnstone. “Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.”

Meanwhile, it cannot be denied, from the perspective of an impartial observer, that the mainstream media is nearly always positioned to promote the government narrative on any number of significant issues. From the media’s unanimous and uncritical clamoring that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 (even the FBI has admitted it has no “hard evidence” that bin Laden carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon), to its gung-ho enthusiasm for the 2003 Iraq War, to the sycophantic cheerleading for a war in Syria, the examples of media toeing the government line are legion. And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they’re spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well.

Is it any surprise, then, that public trust in the US media is reaching all-time lows, while news consumers are increasingly looking to alternative news sites – themselves under relentless attack – to get some semblance of the elusive truth, which is the God-given right of any man? Truth is our due, and we should demand nothing less.

As Thomas Paine reminded the world in the face of a different foe: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending