Quietly, an American Coup in China. 卖天下，卖天明 ，卖無衣。
THIRD PLENUM FALLOUT (Pt 2). At the fork of a 5000 Year Journey: China's Mikhail Gorbachev Li Qiang and CPC plans to sell land and State assets mirroring the Soviet Union sale to the US, 1990-2000.
*
*
如果路线错误，知识越多越反动。*
From ‘Serving the People’ (above and below), Anglophile CPC liberals now believe they’re Masters of the Chinese.
*
*
INTRODUCTION: c/o Hong Kong, Asia Society’s coup attempt on Xi Jinping
“Think tank” academics and professors as those found in Asia Society like to flatter themselves in their belief they stand alone, independent in their thought.
The Chinese knew eons ago, as Ludwig Wittgenstein would discover 2,500 years later (Tractatus Logico-Philosophics, 1921), that the stand-alone independence is impossible.
Everyone grows up attached to something, coming if not from the mother, then father; if not parents, then the school curricula; if not school then the neighborhood; and the Chinese especially grew up to see that opposite things in a dichotomy can never function alone but one exists only because of the other — positive-negative, high-low, day-night, mountains-valleys, Being-non-Being, and so on. Anglophiles grew up imagining the Whitey is superior only because they are inferior things. Whitey and Anglophile Asia Society scholars like to think they have the ultimate possession of truths because the rest of the world is stupid.
But *如果路线错误，知识越多越反动.* Cited here, it’s from Mao Zedong that translates, mine [with emendations in parenthesis]: “Go down the wrong path [it doesn’t matter the knowledge picked up on the way], the more knowledge, the more reactionary.” The line was in reaction to Chinese-imitating-Whitey intellectuals, prescribing political and economic dogmas they picked up from the West to instruct the Chinese how to live, especially what to think and say.
Today, these people mostly gathered in Shanghai bars and Hong Kong where the Asia Society offers a nesting place for US spies, double dealing Chinese media and academia figures and real estate Hang Lung and Cheung Kong tycoons and HSBC bankers. It is also a US State Department and CIA front and repository of recruits in the like of Henry Wang, Hu Xijin and the South Korean Sue Mi Terry (image immediately above). They tell smear stories that they brand and spread as “analysis”.
Characters like Henry Wang and Sue Terry are periodically bundled on stage for US$1,000 per head lunch events to spin tales (in the English, of course) of China’s economic doom. Because of the wealth they appropriate, tied in with their political and bureaucratic official connections, Asia Society operates in China totally unhindered and un-monitored and allowed to do as it pleases. It is a copy of the CIA agency, the National Endowment for Democracy responsible for the Hong Kong 2019 riots. Instead of being hounded out the door as US agents, post 1997, both are registered in Hong Kong as regional Pacific societies, re-packaging and selling propaganda as “research studies”.
The current American coup attempt in China to disappear, sideline if not possible, Xi Jinping would be a bonus to Asia Society, proving to its Hong Kong and Shanghai financial sponsors what money can buy, US Dollar laundering, influence peddling, Rolex watches, LV handbags, and bow tie luncheons at the Mandarin and dinners at The Peninsula Hotel.
Small wonder that Chinese prime minister Li Qiang like so much the yearly Davos World Economic Forum. He almost never misses it. It’s there the Li Qiangs and the Hu Xijins are admitted to western society as Honorary Whites, like the rich Taiwanese once were in apartheid South Africa, making garments on the backs of dirt-poor Black wages.
*
Letter to Comrades Afar
THE PRIVATIZATION DISPOSAL OF CHINA
Sadly I must report to you the situation in our Motherland is dire. As you know Comrade Xi Jinping was supposed to use the Third Plenum (July 15-18) to extend, solidify and further entrench China’s socialist program to cover all facets of political economic life. But everything has turned upside down. For a while, even Xi’s functions were taken over by prime minister Li Qiang. You realise what all that means, don’t you? (See, for example, this and this, plus the fake news in Chinese media that Xi has had a stroke during the Plenum, later re-packaged and re-sold by this piece of Anglophile Yankee shill.)
I can’t tell you how or why the Plenum’s earlier, stated objectives were reversed because I don’t know. I can only know what I have witnessed, what I’ve heard, see them do, say, and act. I am not yet home but I asked Xiaoying; I asked everybody, and everyone can only guess. That’s not good enough. What I can do for now instead is to help uncover the events of July 15-18, from back to front, in a critical political and economic analysis (Parts 2-7) leading thereto. After which take it with you however you like.
What’s at stake is a matter of life and death, and that’s no exaggeration. If indeed the Communist Party (CPC) is selling China, it’s in effect working to end the core tenets of the party’s reason for existence, namely, public and People’s ownership. This doesn’t make sense of course, unless, as Mikhail Gorbachev did in the Soviet Union, Li is working for western financial and corporate interests. That we know as empirical fact because he has cohorts like Hu Xijin and associated rentier class. They sell speeches from and under a liberal, finance capital tutelage.
Perhaps the CPC just might as well wound up.
In recent years, the party has demonstrated to be totally undisciplined. Members run in opposite directions. Some, like Hu, issue proclamations on behalf of the party. Nobody knows if such statements are true or false, and nobody — not one single leader — comes out to clarify, much less to tell Hu to shut up or haul him before a disciplinary hearing. That in turn raises more questions: How could Hu be so brazen without the backing of Li Qiang, Wang Wentao and, in particular, Anglophiles and the White imitation faction, the runyinggang 润英港 (trans., Moist English Kong)? How are we now to trust the CPC leaders anymore, even comrade Xi? Can we continue to leave our beloved Motherland in the care of the CPC after its leaders have demonstrated such brazen willingness to betray the nation.
What’s happened in China is none of their business, but the world is looking on befuddled and confused, predictably; some of them, indoctrinated by the like of Hu Xijin, have been re-selling his liberalism. They are irrelevant to us and we don’t waste our lives with them. Against, however, the fifth column traitors in our ranks, be prepared for an armed revolution to salvage and restore our China! My life is at your disposal! 长命
Should it be necessary, we shall restore our Boxer moment 义和团运动. Our forefathers have sacrificed and lost so much that our People repeatedly remind us to never, never, never betray them! Betrayal has come from within the CPC instead. Not I. Never! And I hope you never will.
*
AMERICAN AGENT INSIDE THE CPC
*
THE GORBACHEVS OF CHINA
The Communist Party of China (CPC)’s Central Committee has announced, as an outcome reached at the Third Plenum (July 15-18), that China is for sale, that is, the disposal by privatization of all collective-owned land and State-owned assets. Loudest in issuing the proclamation has been Hu Xijin of the Global Times, the English/Chinese daily owned by the CPC.
This news has shook China to its foundations, then made all the more confused because nobody from the CPC leadership has come out to clarify, deny it much less. It meant that, at the minimum, the CPC is destroying its raison d’etre and thence to close down the party because it would have given up its core tenet, namely the preservation and protection of public ownership (“socialist” is the official term used) of all critical facets of the economy such as land and natural resource and food production.
At another, national level, the proclamation of sale to complete private ownership meant, in effect, the destruction of the People’s Republic of China as it is presently constituted. This is treason! A capital crime.
Equally alarming is the realization that Hu Xijin could not possibly misinterpret the Third Plenum nor could he have acted alone; he’s just one toad face in the vast sea of CPC’s 99 million members.
Hu’s efforts, and similarly made by others from within the CPC, exactly mirrors the US plan offered by the former US president Ronald Reagan to Mikhail Gorbachev, the secretary general, 1985-1991 (later federal president, 1990-1991) of the Soviet Union Communist Party. The plan was to sell off everything. Indeed that took place; accompanying the breakup of the Soviet Union, the increased imperialist belligerency of NATO, the creation of Ukraine and thence to the war there today.
From the published diaries (cited here) of Reagan, recalling his first meeting with Gorbachev: “When I went to a meeting with the Soviet Secretary General, I expected to see a comrade dressed in a textbook Bolshevik coat and astrakhan cap. Instead, I was introduced to a gentleman dressed in a trendy French costume with a Rado Manhattan watch ... Looking at them, I thought, ‘Yeah ... He will sell us everything!’” (Also see, in Chinese, Gorbachev sold the Soviet Union for USD12 billion. Part 1 in the fallout of the Third Plenum is here. Also see this.)
There is no doubt in the minds and hearts of CPC loyalist who is China’s Mikhail Gorbachev (it’s the prime minister Li Qiang) and the pro-American power behind Hu, both inside the CPC and outside it, namely in the US. We’ve only to spot for a Swiss watch. Not Rado. Perhaps Rolex.
There has been yet another, equally sinister development: Quietly, the call for Xi Jinping to quit has spread. This comes naturally enough, though in paradox, the call has come from multiple factions. On the one side are the liberals because they blamed him for welcoming, even help promote western, capitalist reforms; on the other side by party loyalists because he had tolerated treason and sedition and failed to impose discipline.
Having come this far, there is now no going back for everyone and not just the traitors: If negating 40 years of work succeeds, China collapses completely, as it happened to the Soviet Union, 1990-2000. That, or China rides full steam ahead under stricter party control.
But, treason has been committed; China stands at the edge of plunging down a cliff. Where’s the justice to 1.4 billion who entrusted their nation, our Motherland, to the CPC and nobody else? The CPC can do anything it likes with China, unconstrained by higher law or rules or ethics, and in total disregard to our history and ancestors? What do you do with the Chinese Gorbachevs? Consorting with the US to destroy China is the least of the charges. Shall they continue as if nothing happened, retire happily ever after, as happened to Gorbachev after the Soviet destruction. Or we line them up and decapitate them one by one in Tiananmen Square, starting with Hu Xijin.
*
IDEOLOGY OF A COUP
The twin American Propaganda Myths in the Communist Party of China:
中国离不开世界，世界也离不开中国: China cannot do without the World, the World cannot do without China.
开放就是最大的改革, 如果没有开放就谈不上改革: “Opening up” (Chinese code language for globalization) is the greatest way to reform. Without globalization, reform is impossible.
Those lines above are intended as starting points into the analysis of the Third Plenum which has devoted in overwhelming cases, presentations and arguments to China’s domestic political economy.
Those lines are so trite — and outlandish and absurd — yet by now they are standard in many government pronouncements. That they are what they are meant to be is, very simply, claims, not statements of truth. Nor of facts.
Hence, they are easy to unpack and call out for the lying that those statements do and intent to do, as propaganda. (Hint, this is how you tell propaganda from facts: Is the statement or any statement true?) We don’t waste time with them therefore, although, for other, varied purposes, a part of the Chinese intelligentsia pour tonnes of ink into debunking them, such as is found here: 顾凌英：图穷匕见，胡编们就是在诱导我们改旗易帜！ - 红色文化网.
Contained in those line are the following (below) related economic claims, inferences and conclusions, though these are never, never, never specified. The inferences are inevitably delivered, even by among the foreign Anglophone media/blogger class who write knowing only shit, including people at BRICS. (In parentheses and in italics, I have placed alongside the claims statistical evidences to establish their veracity.)
1. China’s domestic economy is unavoidably and inextricably export oriented. And, in the extreme, entirely dependent on the world and vice-versa. (In 2022, one in five dollars, or 20 percent, worth of goods produced in China are shipped abroad. This is comparatively and astonishing low: Japan’s export to GDP ratio the same year was 22 percent, Russia 28 percent, Switzerland 77 percent, Singapore 186 percent. The US is 11 percent. The mention of Russia is deliberate: the US and NATO embargoed its goods and currency so that shipments to Europe and North America became next to impossible. Yet Russia never for a moment tottered but and thrived during sanctions; its GDP grew 3.0 percent in 2023, expected 2.8 percent in 2024. Now, what if the same happened to China?)
2. China’s reforms are hostage to, alongside foreign trade, foreign investments so that without the latter, reforms can’t or won’t proceed. (This is one of the world’s most fantastical myths. That is, without hard currency, namely Dollars, the world will starve to death. Suppose you live in, say, Japan. With what do you buy a bowl of noodles if not with Yen? The same is true for all companies and the government, spending money to buy noodle ingredients, machineries, build factories, homes, roads and airports. They don’t use Dollars and don’t need to. The same is true for China and better yet. China is self-sufficient, producing everything — everything! — it needs to live. The wheat, corn and pork it buys from abroad are superfluous, purely for reserve stockpiles, to get rid of its hoard of Dollars and make Brazil businesses happy. Oil and gas to fuel the plants appear to be an exception to the rule. But that’s only because shipyards, petrochemical plants and the like have foreign orders to fulfill. No foreign order, no need for foreign oil and gas. Then, in an era of dedollarization, China doesn’t need Dollars to pay for fuel. Saudi Arabia and Russia accept Renminbi! Iran accepts barter: an airport for an equivalent sum of money in oil and gas. Reforms have nothing to do with trade, not even foreign investment.
Because of currencies, investments from Hong Kong and Taiwan are considered foreign for statistical compilation. For the 15-year period to 1994, foreign direct investments (FDI) totalled USD308 billion, averaging USD20 billion a year. From which foreign nation had that come? Europe and America: zero! More than 90 percent of the yearly 20 billion came from three sources: the Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, primarily Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. (Don’t ask why: It is just a Chinese thing among ourselves.) The rest came from the Japan and South Korea, a little from the Chinese in Europe and America. Next, compare FDI inflows into China to the rest of the world. See, for example, Fan Dehui (2006, Economics Department, University of British Columbia) in “Foreign Direct Investment in China: 1981-2001”: https://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/IGSCwp030.pdf. From him is the chart below. Even at the height of the reforms in 1990-2000, China’s share of FDI globally was shockingly minuscule, especially relative to its population size, and that’s for good reasons explained earlier.)
*
MARKETING OF A COUP
With the clarifications out of the way, we now tie Third Plenum’s Decision and its fallout to China’s political, economic reforms. From the Central Committee’s Plenum, July 15-18, came this document: 《中共中央全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》which reads, in English, “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues of Comprehensive Deepening Reform.”
On the last day of the meeting, Xi had this to say to the Central Committee, cited here: 山高路远步履坚定 shāngāo lù yuǎn bùlǚ jiāndìng. Translation: “The mountains may be high and the road ahead long, let’s press ahead, never wavering for a moment.”
Then this: “到二〇二九年中华人民共和国成立八十周年时，完成本决定提出的改革任务。” Translation: “By 2029, on the 80th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the tasks of reforms, proposed now in this Decision [决定 jueding] would be completed.”
The people who have abandoned the highly sophisticated, metaphorical linguistic culture of the Chinese for the crude barbarity of an Anglophile West will dismiss the lines above as convoluted, meaningless rantings. But read between lines. Then extrapolate from terms as “high mountains” and “waver”, the “Decision” and the invocation of the PRC’s 20th Anniversary, what do they conjure? Below is the (presumed) background summary in the state of China’s economy leading to the Plenum’s agenda then conclusion:
China’s domestic economy is seen, at the highest echelons of the CPC, as having reached an inflection point, some say at a crossroad.
Whatever the Decision taken on July 18 has to choose, either to stay the present course or to change direction.
Either way the ramifications are profound, some argue more important than the reforms early days when getting out of poverty was the entire focus. Now it was coping not with poverty but wealth (or capital), a harder nut to crack.
Reform since redefined, a whole slew of new policies, new direction, fresh laws and guidelines have to be redesigned, reconstructed then reissued. (This package has since been euphemistically called “The Decision”.)
Recall, all this is new territory in the reforms although it’s the same term employed for the last 40-odd years. This leads, in turn, to the details of policy construction.
What should those details reflect: market socialism or market liberalism or liberal socialism (a contradiction in terms) or still socialism with Chinese characteristics? Or, whatever….
At this juncture, in redefining reforms and in establishing new goals and directions, the Plenum crosses over to political ideology and with that into CPC’s internal factionalism. (Yes, the CPC is not communist totalitarianism. Rather, its relatively flat and dispersed organisational structure makes it vulnerable to ideological factional in-fighting that run the gamut of, in western terms, extreme Left to fundamentalist Right politics.)
All that explains Xi’s entreaties about high mountains and long road like he were pleading for uniformity and adherence to a common cause. Which, one would imagine, looking from outside in, ought to be plainly obvious, that is, a given — not something the party chief needed to plea.
Issuing new policy directions is one thing, executing them is another. Unlike the US, for example, that sets overall GDP direction simply with a few monetary tools — most commonly, money supply and setting interest rates — China has no such luxury because its economy is organized differently and it is subject to industrial policy, and to social, budgetary and overall GDP planning targets. Then, to support these targets are a slew of laws, rules, regulations and guidelines, for example, to administer lending quotas and allocate budgets from a single village of 2000 to a metropolitan area of 20 million.
Below is a brief summary of the Third Plenum timeline targets:
2025: Launch of Beijing’s 15th Five-Year Plan, using recommendations issued from the Third Plenum’s “Decision” as guide and as platform for deliberations by the National People’s Congress, China’s parliament and law-making body.
2029: Completion of the Third Plenum targets, including a wholesale rewriting of laws, most pertinently, private property, including especially land ownership and transfer, and that terms on private property be redefined and clarified.
2039: Completion of “moderate prosperity” targets, presumably USD25,000 in income per head at present value.
2049: Completion of national rejuvenation 复兴 agenda, that is, the restoration to China’s ancient standing as a premier power in culture, civilization and economy. (The goals are somewhat vague because Chinese history is so long. If China is to be a world top power, then compared to which government era in the past? Nobody knows for sure. Qin? Or Han, Tang, Song or Ming? None of this is explicit. Nor is the income per head benchmark stated. At the present trajectory, USD40,000 per capita is both reachable and feasible.)
At 5 percent interest, every 100 dollars in 2024 doubles to 200 in 15 years, that is, 2039. If, however, interest is 7 percent, the same 100 dollars doubles in 10 years.
No matter how ignorant CPC senior echelon leaders are of western economics, they (actually, we Chinese) are inheritors of an accumulated 3,000-year-long governance experience to know enough to never, never commit to specific numerical targets.
Plan all you want, people say, but after that, mìngzhòng zhùdìng 命中注定, translation, “Fate decides.” It is that term again — zhùdìng 注定, Decision — that’s been all over the Third Plenum.
Xi Jinping’s “comprehensive deepening of reforms” seeks an execution deadline which is five years to 2029. Twenty years after that, 2049, is the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic founding by the CPC in 1949. There are no official or publicly cited numbers in the targets, whether for 2029 or 2039 or 2049. Instead, there are just two words, in the English, “moderately prosperous.”
A dollar today has not the same worth a dollar 15 years later. At 5 percent a year, the present USD13,000 doubles to (for convenient rounding up) USD25,000 in 2039, 15 years time. Given 1 percent inflation rate, USD25,000 requires 29,000 for the latter to be brought forward in net present value. To reach 29,000 at 5 percent interest takes 18 years, well passed the 2039 deadline.
That, the above, represents not a target problem (recall there are no numerical targets) but it is a policy conundrum.
At current per capita income, USD13,000, ranks China globally at around 70 of some 190 countries. The number is also the world’s average. However, USD30,000 puts China within the top 40, a level of the Czech Republic, 3,000 short of Japan (the latter has fallen in the past decade from more than 40,000), and 5,000 short of European per capita at USD35,000. The OECD (Europe + North America + Japan, South Korea) per capita is USD42,000
GDP expanding at 5 percent, USD25,000 in 2039, 40,000 in 2049 (a level higher than Europe at present, next door to OECD), are highly realistic and especially reasonable, doable projections — in a quiet, orderly world (see the first chart below).
*
Therein is the catch: if only there is not another cycle of US intervention wars (currently Ukraine and Palestine), destabilizing operations (Philippines, China and Central America) and regime change (Myanmar, Venezuela).
All destabilizing and regime change operations are, at its core, economic. In China alone: US trade embargoes, seizure of China’s corporate and financial assets, Europe’s threat to confiscate Belt and Road infrastructure networks, rail, ports and the like, Janet Yellen urging other countries at the recent G20 finance ministers meeting to do the same, i.e. boycott and impose higher tariffs on Chinese goods.
It’s under such straitened circumstances that the CPC’s Central Committee met for the Third Plenum. In short, the West, the US in particular, looks able to pull enough weight to scuttle China’s rejuvenation fuxing 复兴 agenda and especially ruin in the short run the 2029 plans.
For the moment, put aside CPC’s internal squabbling and Li Qiang’s plot and motivations to remove Xi Jinping and enthrone himself as our, i.e. China’s, future emperor. It’s not good enough that we say to Li Qiang and his cohorts (among Hong Kong, Shanghai property developers), fuck you!
Turn instead to the economics of the fuxing 复兴 and Xi’s deepening-reform agenda which, in the Plenum, had been brandished as coup weapon and as Asia Society’s ideological and theological spearhead.
Specifically, if the Plenum went for a 7 percent GDP growth in the coming 15 years to 2039, everything changes (see the second chart above).
It will first fend off all US intimidations to China’s existence. At 7 percent rise in GDP, income capita doubles every ten years. At USD20,000 in 2029 — the completion date for the Third Plenum recommendations — China is half-way to the OECD ‘s present average income of USD42,000 per head.
All this means that the fuxing 复兴 and reform gaige 改革 goals for the 2049 100th anniversary are critically dependent on China’s output and income levels the next five years.
Speeding up the economy between now and 2029 provides a safe margin of error, a leeway and a contingency: At 7 percent, USD25,000 is reached in 2029. After that, incomes rise to 50,000 within 15 years, even at growth rates of 5 percent a year (chart below).
Restated another way, for Chinese per head incomes to rise the next 25 years by some USD37,000, three times the present level, a 7 percent GDP rate target for at least the next five years seems almost unavoidable.
The rest of this essay will look into the Plenum’s tussle (a) in terms of choosing between GDP growth rates and, also, (b) in the economic pathways pursued, and theoretical arguments laid out for the rentier class of bankers and real estate developers by their henchmen in academia, media, and CPC. (Skip the segment below if you have no stomach for economics.)
*
ECONOMICS OF A COUP
The thesis for this segment exists as a question:
In the rush to double national per capita income in 15 years to USD25,000, from some USD13,000 at present, is the CPC tip-toeing the entire nation, dragging it along, towards a western, in particular American, political paradigm?
The question’s premises include facts of China’s economy and stated CPC objectives:
(a) At around 5 percent GDP growth rate, economic expansion might not reach rejuvenation 复兴 and reform 改革 income targets in 2039 and 2049.
(b) At 5 percent, average incomes will double in 15 years (2039) to USD25,000 in present prices, but requires 18 years in 2039 prices, that is, USD30,000 (at net future value given 1 percent discount rate).
(c) To reach real income at USD30,000 by 2039 (net future value, adjusted for 1 percent yearly inflation), GDP has to grow at minimum 6 percent yearly for the remaining 15 years (author’s calculations).
(d) Xi Jinping is under pressure to deliver. Since becoming president in 2013, GDP growth rates have trended down, from 7.6 percent in 2013 to 6 percent and never more, compared to between 7 and 15 percent in the two decades before him. See Figure 1.
(e) The pro-US liberal faction (to wit, prime minister Li Qiang and mouthpiece Hu Xijin) blames Xi for the comparatively weaker economic performance by him returning to a more socialist, public-oriented market policies. This charge has been regularly recycled the past three years as hatchet pieces in US regime and corporate media Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and the Council of Foreign Relations. Evidences to the lie are many, but Figures 2 and 3 should suffice. Fig 2: Other than the spike in 2009, lending to US to bail out its banks from a MBS (mortgage-backed security) and junk bonds fraud, loan growth has been 10 percent and more without fail. This is in step with GDP changes. That is, loans drives and is driven by GDP demand, affected in their turn by input prices such as global resource availability like Russian oil and gas being embargoed from world markets by the US. Though private lending had fallen (in the first half of 2024, Fig. 2 , government debt has, very plainly, replaced it as a form of investment, Fig. 3.
Figure 1: Nominal (before accounting for inflation) GDP percentage change, per year.
Figure 2: Percentage change, year-on-year, in the bank issue of private loans or credit.
Figure 3: Changes year-on-year in fixed asset investment (blue line, right hand scale) v. government aggregate debt as percent of GDP (grey line, left hand scale).
Let’s return now to restating the central plank in the claims of the Li Qiang-liberals trying to remove Xi Jinping.
One part states, it was the West-oriented liberal reforms of the 1980 to 2010 that generated China’s high growth (8 to 15 percent) of that period.
The other, remaining part inverses the first: it was Xi’s left, socialist tilt especially since 2013 that brought down the high growth levels to barely 5 percent.
As is typical of western White smears against China (or anyone else), the Whitey Li Gang provide no empirical evidence of causal relationship. Let’s provide it for them. Two pieces of evidences should suffice: (a) money supply, specifically M2 stock and, related thereto, (b) markets, specifically …
(a) MONEY. The first is a straightforward economic principle. M2 should rise as fast as GDP growth since each additional dollar worth of produce or output must necessarily be matched by, at the minimum, an additional unit of currency. Hence, if the Gang’s claim is true then M2 changes should closely track or follow GDP rate changes; M2 being money in circulation arising from consumption, savings, investments and loans, all the defining elements of a liberal, capital economy.
The chart below sees that the two elements of GDP and money follow each other closely whether in the liberal reform era to 2010 or after that. Then, in 2020 to 2021, something breaks and money begins to lag behind GDP incomes. There is only one conclusion: even as incomes rise, whether in spite or because of Xi’s socialist tilt, the liberal side of the economy adds marginally less money into the economy. This reduced pace in savings or consumption or investments or all three draws only one conclusion: socialism is more enduring, and capitalism not so.
*
(b) MARKETS. The chart below shows rising consumer spending (grey line) running in parallel to disposal income (blue). This is as should be under normal market conditions. But see that during Xi’s alleged left or socialist tilt, 2013 to 2023, the trend decades earlier hasn’t detoured at all. On the contrary. In the US, the two lines are upside down, grey over the blue. The reason, the mass of the population has to borrow to spend because wages don’t pay enough, hence, America’s USD35 trillion debt. The White Li liberals want China to emulate the US, so that their foreign bank sponsors can make money taking the population into debt even when nobody needs it. Farther, the chart shows that the Chinese consumer market makes no distinction between socialists or capitalists. If you have useful things to sell (western media people selling claptrap on Substack is hardly useful), there’ll be a buyer. If not, go dig ditches for the municipality.
*
CHINA, BURIAL PLACE FOR DOLLARS
Yes, China will continue to welcome Whiteys and their western capital. The Dollars will be on Chinese soil where we’ll bury these bastards! Here’s one Chinese commentary:
按道理讲，中国老百姓是全世界饱受资本之苦最多最深重的老百姓，当年保障老百姓一生无忧的铁饭碗和大锅饭被彻底砸碎，公有制企业一夜之间变成私人企业，6000多万工人被赶出工厂大门流落街头，数百万妇女被逼良为娼，公费医疗变成了天价医疗，收费教育变成天价教育，所有公共基础设施变成高价消费场所，甚至连大自然免费馈赠的名山大川，也变成了掠夺百姓的高价收费场所……可是所有这些苦难不仅没有让中国老百姓痛恨资本，反而天天站在资本立场上，替各国垄断资本声讨
印度政府采用“极左”手段损害资本利益，不断没收各国跨国公司在印度的企业。
That passage is about foreign investments, that is, capital serving its own sake. If capital were for people working for it, America would cease to exist altogether and the world a safer and happier place.
Yet, in the top CPC senior echelons they have been eager to promote American capital into China. See this Chinese dripping saliva over US tycoons, for example, but they never, never, never show CPC officials promoting Chinese capital from Taiwan, or Hong Kong or Malaysia and Thailand. Why so?
This explains that, instead of sticking to the tried and tested economic pursuits of the reforms’ early decades, there’s in China a current pre-occupation with opening up to Whitey capital. Could that not have anything to do with western doctrinal economics outlined in the previous essay segment? Like notions of “foreign direct investments” and “capital”, China imported western economic doctrines like they are holy instructions written on rocks then brought down from Mount Sinai never to be contested or questioned but worshipped.
It is no coincidence, hence, we see the phenomenon: Arguments cooked in the US military funded Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are most frequently recycled then redistributed by Chinese media agents, CGTN and Global Times, for example. Not Fox News or other anti-Chinese media like The Telegraph. Instead, it’s Singapore’s CNA, and the like of Eric Li and Hu Xijin who are most assiduous in pushing out this flood of verbiage from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as if they are biblical truths, in tablet forms to boot. (See this, for example, and this and this.)
A direct result of these efforts is another phenomenon that resembles, to the last detail, Shang-era divination. Namely, it’s the CPC fixation with macroeconomic targets that, all said and done, is one half guess work and the other half ex post facto academic; these things never bring food to the table. That is, CPC policy planners are today in a habit of, as Americans say, fixing what ain’t broken.
Overwhelmingly, this comes from influence exerted on the CPC rank and file by Chinese Anglophiles (Henry Wang, Eric Li, the Tsinghua University economics department).
One argument trolled out via via Global Times and guancha says rather explicitly that GDP growth trending down the past decade arose because CPC policies have diverge from “reform liberalization”. That is, from US capitalist prescriptions. Restated, more plainly, what these scumbags want is, to get US Dollars back into China, its banks and into the hands of Chinese.
Their arguments, extrapolated such as by Jin Keyu 金刻羽 , says there isn’t enough US-type private, financial investments to allocate resources efficiently within China. That is, finance is illiberal when it doesn’t permit individuals to buy US Treasury bonds.
Yet another argument says the domestic market isn’t free enough to raise consumption because Chinese aren’t buying more Apple phones or H-shares.
The arguments aren’t just outrageous. They are also patently false, reversing the order of logic that sanctifies the liberal doctrine over and above human considerations. In Jin Keyu et al, is a greater concern for sticking with economic doctrines like they are biblical laws than to even pause to investigate the devastation that their theology has wrought on people. American and western societies are full of horror stories for this preference of theological commandments over humanist ethics; for proof of which, only walk down the streets of San Francisco or take the New York subway.
And then there’s the argument which says that China’s rural-urban income disparities arose from inefficient resource allocation, namely farmers aren’t allowed to lease or sell their land to raise incomes. This is a top favorite among Anglophiles in Hong Kong academia and Shanghai corporate propagandists who repackage their US capital ideology into some pseudo morality ethics.
It makes look like they are making a plea on utilitarian grounds for a moral outcome.
Yet, if the idea were to be scrutinized, the entire weight of historical and empirical evidences for 200 years showed that the utilitarian goal of making the poor rich have delivered the exact opposite outcomes. That is, for a moment’s thrill of possessing cash-in-hand, billions of people have been disenfranchised, forever and for subsequent generations, from their only source of livelihood — the land. After which, the only ones who benefited from the idea are the like of Li Ka-shing, Ronnie Chan, Citibank and BlackRock, all sponsors of Asia Society.
Capital would grow more capital, its rentier class making money in their sleep.
All said and done, Asia Society tycoons only want to make more money. So neither the persuasiveness of their arguments nor the force of their liberal doctrine carries any weight. On the contrary, they are redundant and useless. Their liberalism may sell economic books and keep scholars in Asia Society employed. But, right or wrong, the nation, the land and the fruits of resources therein still belongs to the People. That is, they are settled issues, and not up for debate no matter how their arguments, writings and speeches are honey-coated.
China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are not mere enterprises, that is, as corporate vehicles for making money. They are expressions of and key components of national and the People's power. They are, in translation below, said the commentator Hong Jun (in 洪钧, 抹黑国企的多是想吃掉国企这块肥肉的人 - 红色文化网 Red Culture 2029 July 30)
the “foundation of the Chinese [society], guaranteeing national sovereignty and the rights of the People. They exist to resist the abnormality and the barbaric growth of domestic and foreign capital. Collectively, they form the first rampart of defense, resisting hegemonic economic aggression and preserve Chinese monetary and and financial sovereignty.”
That being so, then any attempt to sever the national connections, undermine those native rights, jeopardizes the sovereignty or uproot in any way the bond between a people and their land have to be resisted. When Asia Society’s mealy-mouthed professors and their Anglophile glib-tongue tycoons turn up at our doors steps, no discussion is even necessary. We just exterminate these parasites.
Truth be told, if China were to surrender to the US tomorrow then turn over its factories and land to BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, Americans still won’t leave China alone. That is, not till China turns its 32 province into separate states and Taiwan into an Okinawa naval base. That was the experience of the Soviet Union from 1990 to 2000 — and still ongoing in Ukraine.
All that means the theological debate within the Plenum whether or not the CPC should pursue more or less American style liberal policies is, at root, never fundamental to China thriving or not. At stake is, instead, China’s continued existence, and if that’s truly and meaningfully possible independent of the White man. Everything else flows from that.
The historical record is clear and irrefutable: China has thrived best without the barbarians riding in from the West.
*
A PLENUM TO END CHINESE CIVILIZATION
Since the Shang era, circa 1600 BCE, the Chinese have existed in a single time and space, a single nation, single State, single identity, single sovereign, single economy, single currency, single culture…. Within it, the Chinese may argue in philosophical jargon, even war among themselves over the execution of precise details, such as the form of government. (The Three Kingdoms 三國 era was one of the more notorious and devastating.)
But everyone accepts and agrees to live under a single domain with a name they’d never change, called 天下 tianxia. Which derives from and hurtles towards a single Destiny 天命 tianming that operates within a single paradigm called the Mandate, also written the same 天命.
Now, for the third time in China’s 5,000 year written history the pair of tianxia and tianming realities is being threatened, twice previously from outside, this time from within.
All that is, ultimately, the object and the effects of the Third Plenum.
Its discussions trace back to the single proposition that’s been with China since 1839, which is, the proposed conversion of the Chinese nation and State into a gargantuan private enterprise, like it is America today. Or India under the East India Company for 150 years until 1858 before it was passed for rule to the British crown. Or, Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. Or the Soviet Union, 1900-2000.
Seen from that angle, the Plenum is not a failure but a betrayal not just of the Chinese nation but, above all, its tianxia and tianming objects. Whether for more or for less liberalization, whether academic or ethical, all considerations, all deliberations and all accompanying speeches end up in the same place: they put China up for sale.
The differences among proposals are only quantitative, that is, matters of degree, thus also undermining in matters of degree China’s tianxia and tianming. No! It’s actually worse than undermining; it’s the overthrow of tianxia and tianming — in short, the Chinese order.
At its extreme, the privatization sale of China goes to the bidder best connected to the government under the thumb of a cabal of CPC members allied to Li Qiang, western “think tanks” and western bankers in toe, and on the stage front their Anglophile university professors and real estate developers.
This privatization of China — that is, the turning over of both the Chinese State and the economy it manages into private hands — would require large infusions of cash for especially the buying and selling of land, but also industrial companies. Where would the money come from?
Very naturally, the major banks, all State-owned. There is another handy source of funds: US Treasury bills and bonds.
In the past decade to 2013 some USD750 billion had been redeemed, whittling down some USD1,350 billion at its peak holdings to USD 700 billion still left on US Treasury books. Sell that too, Chinese banks would be left holding Rmb 9 trillion (USD1 = Rmb 7) in US Dollars, and this is key, because US liberal economic doctrine distributed in China is centered solely on money supply. No money, no talk of privatization.
Neither the CPC government nor the CPC itself have the rights to nor do they own the money, indeed all money supply. It belongs to the People, every many, woman, child.
But the execution of political priorities, as were conducted under the Plenum, is a political — who is to get more, what and how — rather than an exercise in economic rationale, on ethical grounds much less. Worse, there is absolutely no consideration for the sanctity, that is, the objects of tianxia and tianming — the foundations which are at core in continuing Chinese culture and civilization.
This is what’s so terrifying about the Third Plenum.
-end-
*
Recitation:
《秦風·無衣》The Qin Mandate 天命
*
《千年的祈祷》A Thousand Year Ode to China
*