The goodwill, however, hasn’t lasted. Trump loyalists are running a campaign to oust Rudd from his current role as Australian ambassador to the United States, for comments branding Trump “a village idiot.”

Imma be real, this is just well deserved. Being “diplomatic” is literally the term for not insulting people. What the fuck was this guy thinking?

Rudd asserts that there are three integrated components to what he labels Xi’s “Marxist nationalism.”

I love how everything that comes after is mostly just an ideological leaning towards bog standard left-ish economics or national security strengthening. Barely even Marxism.

And Rudd places the blame for this protectionist wave firmly on Xi’s China, which, due to its size and integration into the world market, threw a wrench into the established global economy.

Ain’t Xi’s fault you guys de-industrialized and started importing everything from China.

In this context, Rudd asks his US readership, what rational country would turn on its largest trading partner — China — while swearing loyalty to America for no economic gain?

Fortunately, Europeans aren’t rational. So you do have some lapdogs for now.

Does China’s expansion into global markets have its roots in “the eclectic ethical universe of Xi’s modernized and Sinified Marxism,” as Rudd claims, “whose values, concepts, and language will increasingly be drawn from a cocktail of Communist, Confucian, and even international sources”?

What in the ever loving fuck does this paragraph mean? What do global markets have to do with confusianism?

the country’s long economic crisis

We have gone beyond delusion into the realm of comedy

Rudd asserts that there are three integrated components to what he labels Xi’s “Marxist nationalism.” The first moves Chinese politics to “the Leninist left.” By this, Rudd means that Xi’s reforms have increased the leader’s power over the CPC, and restored both internal party discipline and its control over the state apparatus.

Mhm, it’s almost like they’re Marxist Leninist

The second component, according to Rudd, has pulled Chinese economics to “the Marxist left,” which he defines as reasserting the dominance of state planning over market forces, specifically by wielding the power of humongous state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Mhm, it’s almost like they’re actually socialist

The third component of Xi’s “Marxist nationalism” has shifted Chinese foreign policy to “the nationalist right.”

There’s a difference between the nationalism of chauvinism and self-sovereignty, and frankly, China’s nationalism isn’t about other-ing others.

In Rudd’s analysis, this has meant top-down campaigns that emphasize the centrality of Chinese civilization and the decline of the West.

Yes.

But what does all this mean for China and the world? Rudd makes some cautious economic predictions. He claims that talk of “peak China” has no real grounds, and rather reflects attempts by China-haters to imagine their desires into reality. A decade of slower Chinese growth, however, is definitely in the cards. This is in part due to issues such as demographic decline and falling productivity, as well as debt in key sectors, reduced global trade due to geopolitics, and a shortfall in private capital investment.

But Rudd suggests that China’s decade of slower growth is also likely due to the impacts of policies related to Xi’s “Marxist nationalism.” These include increased state planning, the use of SOEs as future vehicles of technology and innovation as well as increased suspicion of the private sector, and a push toward mercantilism.

Demographic decline? Isn’t that common with many other modern post-industrialized nations

Falling productivity and global trade? NO, that’s untrue

As for FDI, maybe that’s a problem (though China is a hegemony of its own, so it could be self-reliant on that matter)

And on the 2nd part, I’d prefer it as such.

After all, a growth of 5% from a $1 trillion GDP is better than a growth of 20% from $1 billion GDP

Compare this to Hung Ho-fung’s take, outlined in his book Clash of Empires (2022). Hung argues that if the CPC were able to sufficiently mitigate the overaccumulation-profitability crisis by boosting household incomes and consumption, it would lessen the need for China to export capital. In turn, this would reduce the need to fight the United States for spheres of influence. Hung contends that, though difficult, if a change like this were to take place on a large enough scale, it could help prevent an inter-capitalist rivalry from becoming open war.

On a side note, this seems good idea but then, here, China is implied as being capitalist and imperialist? (Bullshit again)

Mixed article, I tell ye hwat

Holy shit that was hilarious. Everytime u thought the article couldn’t get funnier it reveals some new level of incoherence. My favorite part might be a section early on where Rudd’s genius epiphany is that the CPC is just telling the truth about what it believes and what it’s trying to do… and this is bad for some reason.

It also hilariously brings up the fact that China is trying its best to not get into a war with the US, but does nothing to comment on the fact that they just charecterized the US as unquestionably the aggressive actor, going on to speculate about China’s nefarious plans.

Hilarious read, thanks you for this, it’s absurdly entertaining.