Chinese economist Zhu Hengpeng disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported. He reportedly made comments on China's sluggish economy.

A top economist has joined the growing list of China’s elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.

CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China’s cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a “body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership.”

According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China’s sluggish economy and criticizing Xi’s leadership in a private group on WeChat.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    77·
    1 month ago

    In his theory of Historical Materialism.

    Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don’t see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.

    Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you’re here in bad faith.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      102·
      1 month ago

      Yes, you can claim that. I asked you to show me where. At the very least a reference to where he says it, but you could quote him. I don’t see why you think I should just trust your interpretation.

      Marx hadn’t lived in a time where there was a society that tried to jump to Communism immediately without developing the Means of Production first, so the closest we can get is his critique of Anarchism. Critique of the Gotha Programme also provides perspective on the transition to Communism:

      What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

      However, I encourage you to read Marx for yourself. You shouldn’t “trust” my interpretation, you should dive into Marxism if you wish to critique Marxists along Marxist lines. You can critique as a non-Marxist, that’s perfectly valid, but trying to critique as a Marxist without a solid understanding of Marxism isn’t good-faith in my opinion.

      Also, I am not making a value judgment about communism. Do not try to twist what I am saying into an argument against communism, because you are starting to look like you’re here in bad faith.

      I am not trying to say that you’re making a value judgement. My argument is that, as a Marxist-Leninist that has read no fewer than 2 dozen books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Parenti, Politzer, and other Marxist writers, it is evident to me that your understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism is lacking, and that clouds your judgement when you critique using Marxist analysis.