iKarli [comrade/them]
Mahmut says students stay in the facility he oversees for an average of eight months and can leave after doing well on exams. But none of the several detainees the government made available to NPR said it was clear when they could return home.
By “return home” here they’re referring to when detainees can return home after fully graduating the program rather than simply being allowed to return home on the weekends.
You could easily stop this by taxing the hell out of them.
There has been at least some recent progress on that front:
China’s plan to cut taxes in 2019 for the masses has the nation’s super-rich running for cover on concern the government will make up the shortfall by going after the wealthy.
Changes to the tax regime as of Jan. 1 mean authorities will be paying closer attention to assets and investment holdings.
Under the new rules, owners of offshore companies will not only pay taxes on dividends they receive but will also face levies of as much as 20 per cent on corporate profits, from as low as zero previously. In the past, the rich could avoid paying taxes on overseas earnings by acquiring a foreign passport or green card, while keeping their Chinese citizenship. But this won’t work starting in January as the government will tax global income from all holders of “hukou” household registrations — the most encompassing way of identifying a Chinese national — regardless of whether they have any additional nationalities.
Tycoons transferring assets to relatives or third parties could be subject to taxation in the new year, depending on how strictly China enforces rules on gifts, according to Ni at Zhong Lun. The levies could reach as much as 20 per cent of the asset’s appreciated value, according to Ni.
Tax authorities will sharpen their scrutiny of high-net-worth individuals thanks to more modern tools at their disposal, according to Ni.
Further down the road, China is preparing to introduce a property tax law that could go into effect as soon as 2020. Though the tax rate and the details remain unclear, the prospects of the tax has caused people with multiple apartments to worry and made properties a less desirable investment tool, EY’s Mi said.
Chinese capitalists are also excluded from the Central Committee of the CPC just as the capitalist NEPmen were excluded from any real political power in the Soviet Union under their NEP.
Are you referring to Pachakutik and Yaku Pérez? Have to admit that he is pretty problematic:
When asked about Andrés Arauz’s plan to give $1,000 to 1 million mothers who are the heads of their households once he’s elected president, Yaku Pérez claimed these people will “probably spend it all on beer that same day.”
According to Leonidas Iza, an indigenous leader and president of the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi, Evo Morales did not invite Yaku Pérez to the inauguration because the Pachakutik candidate celebrated the right-wing dictatorship in Bolivia. He also never condemned the Anez regime’s massacre against indigenous protestors. He accused Morales and Correa of “authoritarianism, machismo, extractivism, and populism.” Pérez also called Maduro and Correa “colonial, ethnocidal, and racist.” He rooted for their governments to “fall”:
“Now all that’s missing is for Rafael Correa and Maduro to fall. It is just a matter of time.”
The “us puppet” description of Pachakutik originally comes from Venezuelan-American journalist Eva Golinger who revealed that the Pachakutik party and anti-Chavista opposition parties were financially supported and trained by the US government’s National Democratic Institute which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Agency for International Development, and the US Department of State.
Pérez certainly seems better than the openly neoliberal candidate Lasso, who appears to have lost the first round; however, it’s important to remember that he had actually supported Guillermo Lasso’s candidacy in the 2017 presidential elections. Lasso has also reportedly said he’d support Pérez in the 2nd round. There unfortunately are a plethora of red flags with Yaku Pérez:
There seems to be a serious disconnect between Pérez and CONAIE with its rank and file.
Yaku Pérez has a lot of comments that raise doubt about his purported leftist credentials:
According to Leonidas Iza, an indigenous leader and president of the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi, Evo Morales did not invite Yaku Pérez to the inauguration because the Pachakutik candidate celebrated the right-wing dictatorship in Bolivia. Pérez also never condemned the Anez regime’s massacre against indigenous protestors. He has instead accused Morales and Correa of “authoritarianism, machismo, extractivism, and populism.” Evo has backed Aruaz. Yaku rooted for the socialist Maduro and Correa governments to “fall”:
“Now all that’s missing is for Rafael Correa and Maduro to fall. It is just a matter of time.”
Bellingcat is considered an American government op because it’s funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is funded by the US government. According to NED president Allen Weinstein:
A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.
The Grayzone can’t really be considered an op as they’re only funded by their readers through direct donations and by their Patreon members and don’t accept state funding. I’ve donated to them before. They’re just Marxist journalists that primarily cover Western government-led regime change efforts, regardless of whether the regime change targets are socialist governments (Bolivia, Nicaragua, China, and Venezuela) or not socialist (Iran, Syria, and Russia). You could make the case that RT is a Russian op though as it is funded at least partially by the Russian government although they do host a lot of leftist content with Richard Wolff and Chris Hedges being frequent contributors.
Yeah, I agree that it’s doubtful that every employee of a NED-funded outlet is necessarily a literal undercover CIA officer. We don’t know the exact extent of just outright full collaboration or US government micromanagement within some of these NED-funded organizations. Maybe more of a case here of the US government just cultivating outlets and their employees as at least generally reliable assets for advancing American government interests (Perhaps they were already at least partially ideologically-aligned, share some similar key goals, support current US foreign policy, or just like what NATO has to offer. Hell, maybe the US just sees them as “useful idiots”.) and financially supporting them accordingly via NED funding to promote them after recognizing their value. So, yeah, maybe not necessarily always 100% full-on ops or full-on feds.
I think you’re confusing Deng with Chen Yun (who was another high-ranking Chinese communist party official who was also anti-cultural revolution and pro-market socialism):
Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
Deng’s assessment of Mao was more positive:
We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao’s contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao’s life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past; it is — and will continue to be — a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. Moreover, we will adhere to Mao Zedong Thought. We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchov did to Stalin.
We must make a clear distinction between the nature of Chairman Mao’s mistakes and the crimes of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. For most of his life, Chairman Mao did very good things. Many times he saved the Party and the state from crises. Without him the Chinese people would, at the very least, have spent much more time groping in the dark. Chairman Mao’s greatest contribution was that he applied the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, pointing the way to victory. It should be said that before the sixties or the late fifties many of his ideas brought us victories, and the fundamental principles he advanced were quite correct. He creatively applied Marxism-Leninism to every aspect of the Chinese revolution, and he had creative views on philosophy, political science, military science, literature and art, and so on.
I would be quite content if I myself could be rated fifty-fifty in merits and demerits. But one thing I can say for myself: I have had a clear conscience all my life. Please mark my words: I have made quite a few mistakes, and I have my own share of responsibility for some of the mistakes made by Comrade Mao Zedong. But it can be said that I made my mistake with good intentions. There is nobody who doesn’t make mistakes. We should not lay all past mistakes on Chairman Mao. So we must be very objective in assessing him. His contributions were primary, his mistakes secondary. We will inherit the many good things in Chairman Mao’s thinking while at the same time explaining clearly the mistakes he made.
His view of Mao’s actions was said to be “70 percent right and 30 percent wrong.” This was similar to his view of Stalin:
To use the Chinese way, the score for Stalin would be thirty percent to seventy percent: thirty for his errors and seventy for his merits. Furthermore, Chairman Mao agreed with me on the question of Stalin’s score, and, after the twentieth Congress of the CPSU, members of the Communist Party of China expressed a very clear judgment of Stalin. We said that we would always continue to consider his writings as classic works of the international Communist movement.
Reminder that the right-wing “lab leak” conspiracy theory is pure speculation with no evidence (direct or even indirect). However, we do have empirical evidence to support natural origins: https://mobile.twitter.com/MoNscience/status/1396240581651742724
Another reminder that the “lab leak” theory is still pure speculation with no evidence (direct or even indirect). However, we do have actual empirical evidence to support natural origins:
Before the post-WWII division of Korea, the North only had about 18% of the total commerce and about a third of the light industry and agriculture of the peninsula. Despite the destruction of the North by American forces during the Korean War, the DPRK had managed to achieve higher GNP per capita than South Korea until the mid-1970s. The North Korean economy in the mid-1960s was actually praised even by western Keynesian economists like Joan Robinson:
Eleven years ago in Pyonygang there was not one stone standing upon another. (They reckon that one bomb, of a ton or more, was dropped per head of population.) Now a modern city of a million inhabitants stands on two sides of the wide river, with broad tree-lined streets of five-story blocks, public buildings, a stadium, theaters (one underground surviving from the war) and a super-de luxe hotel. The industrial sector comprises a number of up-to-date textile mills and a textile machinery plant. The wide sweep of the river and little tree-clad hills preserved as parks provide agreeable vistas. There are some patches of small gray and white houses hastily built from rubble, but even there the lanes are clean, and light and water are laid on. A city without slums.
There is already universal education […] There are numerous nursery schools and creches, all without charge. There is a complete system of social security […] The medical service is free. […] Workers receive holidays with pay.
All the economic miracles of the postwar world are put in the shade by these achievements
The DPRK later encountered a number of severe setbacks from increased military pressure from the US that caused the North Koreans to devote up to 25% of its GNP to its military (which is extremely high), crippling sanctions, the Sino-Soviet split that strained its economic relations with both China and the Soviet Union, excessive unbalanced growth with an overemphasis on heavy industry and underinvestment in light industry and consumer goods, bottlenecks in some sectors from mistakes in planning, a lack of hard currencies, and devastating droughts and floods hurting agriculture. The loss of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Soviet-bloc left the DPRK even more extremely economically isolated and vulnerable. This ultimately led to its economic devastation in the 90s.
South Korea’s economic rise actually relied heavily on a state-led model (which ironically contradicts the neoliberal dogma of the Economics Explained channel) of 5-year plans, protectionism, industrial policies, and state-owned enterprises (like Pohang Steel Company) as well as receiving large amounts of foreign investment, technology, and aid from the West and its allies.