cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2904990
The Chinese government has introduced a slew of new measures designed to tighten its grip on lucrative natural resources used in everything from electric cars to wind turbines. In a list released by the country’s State Council on Saturday, Beijing declared that rare earth metals are the property of the state and warned “no organization or person may encroach on or destroy rare-earth resources.” From Oct. 1, when the rules come into force, the government will operate a rare earth traceability database to ensure it can control the extraction, use and export of the metals. China currently produces around 60 percent of the world’s rare earth metals, and is the origin of around 90 percent of refined rare earths on the market. Advertisement
Beijing has already prohibited exports of rare earth refining and magnet manufacturing technologies. In January, it banned the export of gallium and germanium, both highly sought after by the computer-chip industry. Fears that China is looking to exert control over the industry, and could disrupt critical technology, automotive and renewable energy supply chains, have sparked a race to shore up supplies from alternative suppliers. Both the U.S. and the EU have launched efforts to procure rare earths at home and abroad, including in Vietnam, Brazil and Australia. A year ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced construction of the first large-scale rare earth refinery outside of Asia, located in Estonia. She said the move would “bolster European resilience and security of supply.”
A 2022 analysis from the European Parliament warned that over-reliance on monopolistic suppliers was a major risk for Europe. “The EU imports 93 percent of its magnesium from China, 98 percent of its borate from Turkey, and 85 percent of its niobium from Brazil. Russia produces 40 percent of the world’s palladium,” it said. “The latter is a reminder of the strategic implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the need for the EU to prepare for an increasingly uncertain world.”
The EU has launched a probe into anti-competitive trading allegations against the Chinese electric vehicle market, which benefits from heavy government subsidies and preferential access to essential rare earth metals. Earlier this month, the two sides agreed they would host consultations in order to try and resolve the standoff.
That last paragraph really is so damning. It is admitting the superiority of China’s central planning and how it is being used to actually improve society. ”But at what cost?”
Well, apparently the cost is that shares of China’s largest rare earth mineral mining firm have gone up 5% since the announcement. China proving socialists right every single day and absolutely crushing the capitalist development speedrun challenge. It’s genuinely hilarious that the development plan of China runs basically like what I’ll describe below, and capitalist nations are just completely incapable of stopping it from happening because the power of capital is greater than the power of their states.
“hmmm yes, today I will invest in the Chinese rare earth mineral market. Since China controls 90% of global production and all of the infrastructure is in place, all I have to do is bring my money, tech, and expertise with me and I’ll carve myself some serious profit! Easy money!”
“Ahh yes thank you for the help developing our mining industry/technology Mr. Foreign Capital. We appreciate your business and you had a great run, but unfortunately for you we have nationalized your mineral resources. The extractive capitalism will now stop. Feel free to reinvest elsewhere or compete with us on the global market tho :)”
”China is nationalizing its rare earth minerals, but at what cost? We need to ban China from–“
Rinse and repeat
Yes, Lenin also prescribed dictatorship. His mindset was inextricable from the imperialist context he lived in, it limited his ability to imagine further. Which is part if why communism has always failed or collapsed into a fascist state capitalism (like China).
Are you referring to “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Because if you read what he wrote, it means “democracy where the former oppressor class is temporarily politically disenfranchised”
It feels like you’re playing telephone with yourself while trying to get zingers in
China has better life expectancy than the US when it was a feudal state occupied by Japan 80 years ago, what is your metric for failure lol? China is also leading the renewable push, and has made massive innovations in participatory democracy.
MODHAT calling communist nations fascist serves to enable holocaust trivialization, doing this again will net you a ban.
Anywhere I can read about this?
https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/explainer-how-china-is-quietly-becoming-a-renewables-powerhouse/#:~:text=China is leading the world in renewables&text=Wind and solar energy are,40%25 of total installed capacity.
http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/in-depth/2024-03/11/content_117101412.htm#:~:text=The concept of "whole-process,of laws and institutional arrangements.
That’s very interesting, thanks. The whole tone of the second article seems so much different than how we talk about our “democracy” in Canada, where I am from. We talk about it here as a form of prestige (“Canada is so good, we’re democratic, unlike those Asian countries”), where that article made it sound like they were celebrating how it helps the people. At least that’s my vibe.
Now that I think of it, I have no idea how their governance works. We’re just sorta guided to think the communist party gets together for dinner and decides what everyone has to make for lunch on Thursdays lol. Probably interesting to look into!
Yeah no problem, and I appreciate your perspective on it as a Canadian. 😄
“Temporarily” has a pretty consistent habit of becoming permanent. It’s either malicious or extremely naive on Lenin’s part to believe that ypu can concentrate power into the hands of a few people and then they’ll just voluntarily give it up.
Which term is Xi on now at this point again? Oh right, he made himself dictator for life…
Temporary refers to disenfranchising the former bourgeoisie and nobility, not concentrating power? The USSR had a four tier federated legislative structure with the executive appointed by the legislature.
Yeah, and Castro was also dictator for life /s
I know it is unimaginable to you that leaders can stay popular and maintain a democratic mandate because you live in a bourgeois democracy but come on.
You know that term limits were invented because FDR was too popular right? They are an antidemocratic measure.
Have realistic elections been happening? If not, what legitimate gauge do we have on xi’s popularity?
Literally Harvard affiliated studies show immense satisfaction with the government
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
Yes, have you looked at how elections function in China?
I am asking, I am ignorant. I’m not JAQ I’m literally asking the question.
I have not heard of a minority but competitive party in China, or heard of any leading, but not succeeding candidate that has attempted to run/win.
From my western perspective, I’ve only ever heard of loud critical voices in the Chinese political sphere “disappearing” for “education” or similar.
I acknowledge my position (western media influenced), but have never heard of a single actual competitor to xi
Well, socialist countries operate on concensus for major positions- the idea is that the vote is only part of the democratic process, and a large part of democracy lives in creating constructive feedback cycles between the people and the government and between different levels of government where concerns are understood and addressed.
If there was a competitor for Xi, it would not be part of the voting process, it would be in discussions amongst electeds for who is best for the role, and then a vote would happen where people approve of or disapprove of their representatives choice.
But you can imagine how that seems, to anyone from any flavor of western democracy, including social democrats and democratic socialists…
If the party officials are having closed door discussions on who will lead, the mandate of the masses seems obscured, or absent.
If xi’s popularity took a nose dive, how would the common citizen express their opinion? On what schedule? If the “elected” officials strongly favored keeping xi, but the citizenry strongly favored large leadership change, how would that occur?
Removed by mod