95
Venture capitalists in clean tech are starting to say out loud what they’ve suspected for a while: China’s dominance has left key sectors in the West uninvestable. (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 2 months ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/technology@hexbear.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://archive.ph/MMF6B

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jack@hexbear.net 76 points 2 months ago

Global clean-tech dominance hasn’t necessarily meant profits for Chinese firms. Beijing has been phasing out subsidies such as the feed-in tariffs that had guaranteed high prices for renewable power. That’s as over-production has driven down prices to near break-even levels.

Spazzapan from Systemiq says shareholder interests in China “have been largely disregarded, with chronic overcapacity and relentless price wars eroding company equity.”

It’s a system that favors “scale over profitability,” she says.

This is exactly what a socialist government should do with renewables.

[-] piccolo@hexbear.net 68 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Right after your quote:

For companies and investors caught in the fray, it’s been “total misery,” says Dan Wang, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover History Lab and the author of Breakneck. China’s model relies on “a lot of state power, a lot of consumer power, but not very much financial investor benefit,” he says.

porky-point won't someone think of the poor shareholders? porky-scared

xigma-male No.

[-] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 29 points 2 months ago

Dan Wang, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover History Lab

Opinion immediately disregarded

[-] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 months ago

I hear what you're saying, but one thing that comes along with no American investment is no American jobs.

[-] spectre@hexbear.net 41 points 2 months ago

The United States is going to be unable to form a socialist government. Thus, it will be unable to resolve this problem, and its economy and working classes will contribute to suffer.

[-] jack@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

The United States is going to be unable to form a socialist government.

Disagree

[-] spectre@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

I think the dissolution of the United States government is a pre-requisite to forming a socialist government in the territories it occupies. The United States may be able to adopt some social democratic reforms but that's a stretch. Definitely happy to have it all wrong, though.

[-] Dessa@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

Well, we're making great progress in destroying the country.

[-] jack@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Well the goal is a revolutionary overthrow of the current state and the establishment of a worker's state controlled by a communist party, so all of that should go together. I'm not talking at all about a reformist transition to socialism. I think the impossibility of reforms under the current state are one of the reasons for it being a plausible revolutionary situation.

[-] spectre@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

No yeah we are both on this site so we agree more than we disagree. I just don't think even the borders of a future socialist state (states?) will be aligned with the current borders of the United States.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

In the short to mid-term this is very likely true. There's not even one historical example of a developed, industrialized society transitioning to socialism

[-] jack@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

In the short to mid-term this is very likely true.

Depends what time frame that is

There's not even one historical example of a developed, industrialized society transitioning to socialism

True, but we're entering an unprecedented era globally largely due to China's economic and industrial power dramatically reshaping global trade. There's only one capitalist empire today and it is in an extremely precarious position. Its internal politics are erratic and understandable while its internal economy has devolved almost entirely to self-cannibalism without the capacity to generate innovation or new value. When that house of cards tumbles, there will be new opportunities.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah but historically crumbling capitalist empires turn to fascism to prevent socialist movements, it will take the collective west a lot of suffering to get through the coming internal fascist repression and coming out victorious as socialist countries. As of now, there's only anticommunism or revisionism, establishing a strong communist party takes decades. I really hope China will help us in this endeavor and that the global south will emancipate itself and become socialist soon, but I fear the west has a hard and long path to socialism.

[-] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

Generally I agree. But fascism today will probably bear little resemblance to fascism of the 20s-40s in practice. While they'll both share reactionary state violence, the European fascism of its peak era emerged from radically different conditions to today. The key factor was the nature of fascist mass politics. The Nazis and Italian fascists drew their base from WWI veterans whose humanity had been obliterated by the horrors of war and who were ready and willing to carry out mass political violence in their millions. What's the social base of fascism today? In the US, there are no mass fascist street movements or organizations. There is only a messy system of state repression and a large but largely inactive minority giving passive support. Without genuine popular investment in the project, it's even more brittle than the fascisms of old, which didn't last. I know there's more of a mass social base in Europe, but even that is nothing compared to the radicalized bloodthirsty hordes of old fascism. Not only that, but the imperialist powers were at their all-time historic peak in power except the US, which hit its peak a few decades later but is still long past it. All of this leads me to the conclusion that this budding neofascism will not progress nearly as far or last as long as the old fascism that lead to WWII.

I really hope China will help us in this endeavor

They are, just not at all in the way the USSR did. The BRI and other investment/trade structures, multilateral institutions, and technological superiority of China (like the subject of this thread) are weakening the US's grip and giving countries all over the world the opportunity to pursue economic development on their terms more and more each day. International trade between Global South countries is at an all-time high while the share of economic and industrial activity of the Global North is the lowest its been in centuries.

the global south will emancipate itself and become socialist soon

The Global South today is a revolutionary tinderbox ready to explode. Some inciting moment will be the spark that produces a chain reaction of decolonial revolution. I'd guess it's an overreaching war by the hyper-empire that backfires, sets off a revolution in a major player in the Global South, and from there things keep going.

the west has a hard and long path to socialism

And yet we can see that path and we are headed down it.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

I hope your analysis is correct regarding fascism in Europe, but I could argue that as much as there aren't fascist hordes, we don't have the degree of worker struggle and unionization of the 1900s. This is not to be pessimist, though, I appreciate your analysis.

Regarding China of course it's already helping, I just meant more direct help over the following decade: overt military support to anti-imperialist projects, funding of radical communist organizations over the globe, economic pressure as a geopolitical tool, soft power and intelligence agencies... You know, the CIA manual, but efficient and socialist. Also they really need to abandon neoliberalism and move towards modern monetary theory + planned economy in the following years, at risk of letting neoliberalism cement itself as the only economic toolset available to the Chinese government (comrade @xiaohongshu@hexbear.net has great analysis of this latter point).

My hopes are personally on a global south revolution fueled by China and by the contradictions of neocolonialism and unequal exchange dynamiting the leftovers of the western empire once the deindustrialization it subjected on itself means it can't maintain its geopolitical standing and its exploitation (we're seeing this already with the entire NATO producing 1/4th the ammo that the USSR did)

[-] jack@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

I respect and appreciate XHS's insight and analysis but stand by fundamentally disagreeing with their application of "neoliberal" to China. Yes, the Chinese state wants to balance the budget. That is not even a central tenet of neoliberalism, though. What is are privatization, the destruction of state capacity, and the elimination of regulation. From a Marxist perspective, we'd add the dominance of finance and monopoly capital. None of these apply to China. China currently has a planned economy where the market is subservient to the political directives of the state. XHS also frequently claims their trade policy is mercantilist, but I think that misses what Chinese capital investments actually do in the countries where they're made. China is constantly building the transportation and industrial capacity of other countries so that they can become more equal trade partners, which requires exporting to those countries. XHS says that these exports are proof of China's unwillingness to alter its trade relationships away form an export economy to a balanced one. I argue that those exports are necessary to create countries who have the material basis needed to be balanced trade partners. Chinese capital investments produce negative returns from abroad and yet they continue to grow and expand. We can assume this is neoliberal trade economics being carried out very stupidly and contrary to the CPC's stated goals, or we can accept that China is willingly losing money in order to boost the economic and industrial development of the world's most underdeveloped countries, which is obviously needed in order to progress to sovereignty and eventually socialism.

XHS is and has always been correct about their analysis of China's debt problems, need to move to MMT, and need to build much more internal consumption and circulation, and their knowledge about the internal dynamics of China beats everybody on this site by a mile.

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Awesome response, comrade. I'll think deeply about your analysis, thank you for your insight. Especially the data on Chinese capital investment abroad returning negative profit is indicative of purposeful anti-imperialist policy. It's good that we can in this instance both appreciate the analysis of other comrades and criticize it from respect.

[-] xiaohongshu@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, the Chinese state wants to balance the budget. That is not even a central tenet of neoliberalism, though. What is are privatization, the destruction of state capacity, and the elimination of regulation.

This is incorrect. In fact, privatization did happen in China. All of the big tech and renewable energy companies you hear about including EV, solar, AI and robotics are all private companies.

However, you are still missing the fact that China had been able to avoid austerity for the most part because of the tremendous exchange of cheap Chinese goods being sent to the Western countries. Many other countries (especially post-Soviet Eastern European countries) also tried to balance their budget but simply did not have the vast labor pool to dominate the export market to matter.

This is the real outflow of China’s wealth - an immense outflow of real resources and labor for decades that could have been spent to improve the lives of the Chinese people. This is the reason why people in the West can enjoy cheap goods.

Always think in real terms and it’ll make sense. Who’s gaining the actual goods and services, and who’s working hard to make them in exchange for a financial asset.

[-] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

This is incorrect. In fact, privatization did happen in China. All of the big tech and renewable energy companies you hear about including EV, solar, AI and robotics are all private companies.

The existence of private companies is not privatization. Privatization is the sale of public goods, services, infrastructure, and enterprises to private, for-profit entities. Under neoliberalism, this becomes the overriding priority of the state that takes precedence over all socially useful functions of the state. There is nothing off-limits in neoliberalism's privatization regime. The bulk of China's economy, especially the "commanding heights" remain under state and party control. This is entirely incompatible with neoliberalism.

However, you are still missing the fact that China had been able to avoid austerity for the most part because of the tremendous exchange of cheap Chinese goods being sent to the Western countries. Many other countries (especially post-Soviet Eastern European countries) also tried to balance their budget but simply did not have the vast labor pool to dominate the export market to matter.

This is the real outflow of China’s wealth - an immense outflow of real resources and labor for decades that could have been spent to improve the lives of the Chinese people. This is the reason why people in the West can enjoy cheap goods.

I agree with and acknowledge all of the above. That's the nature of being a colonized, developing country. It's not Chinese neoliberalism.

[-] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Also, "sound finance" is very much a tenent of neoliberalism, especially so under an economy with significant for-profit private sector. It's the job of the state to ensure that overproduction isn't going to 'trash' (giant trade surpluses). I say its trash because its very similar, if the market fails and there is an excess of say, wheat, in the economy, most socialists would say the Government should purchase it at a floor price and give it for free. Now, instead of giving to your own people, you decide to give to Americans and Westerners just because they can afford to buy it, its done 'naturally' by the market.

Exports under a market economy cannot be considered the same as a central planner deciding to give solar panels to Cuba for free or at cost for ideological or political reasons. It arises from the capitalist wanting to maximize profits.

In such an economy it is capitalist tendency to hoard and to much lesser extent workers tendency to save that give rise to massive Government deficits or build up of private sector (commercial bank) debt.

In a pure state run economy (without commercial bank lending), the state deficits would be naturally much smaller, since prices are flexible downwards without causing unemployment and because a large source of leakage i.e. capitalist tendency to hoard is absent.

[-] jack@hexbear.net 27 points 2 months ago

America's decision to wage war on the climate and destroy its renewable industry is its own damn fault. China is putting out the tech to solve climate change - something the US could've done decades ago but chose not to over and over. Should the rest of the world suffer to protect some American jobs?

[-] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago

Sounds like a you problem

[-] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 52 points 2 months ago

shareholder interests in China “have been largely disregarded

waow-based

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 30 points 2 months ago

China is actually trying to move away from this competition. There have been public communications about moving away from zero-sum competition or whatever.

[-] spectre@hexbear.net 29 points 2 months ago

True but I don't think that's for the benefit of the investors, it's more to benefit of the workers who won't lose their jobs when the companies collapse.

Given the market situation, isn't it a good time to get some consolidation in these industries? Get down to 2-3 companies and once a monopoly forms, start considering nationalization.

[-] xiaohongshu@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Given the market situation, isn't it a good time to get some consolidation in these industries?

No, the so-called “overcapacity problem” is really just a symptom of a much larger problem that nobody is willing to admit: wealth inequality.

You have an oversupply because… nobody has the money to consume, or, people are being extremely reluctant to consume because of the perceived poor economic outlook, and that they are going to lose their jobs at any given moment due to the uncertainty in the economy.

What the government should immediately be doing are:

  1. Provide social welfare so those who are laid off have a safety net
  2. Provide free healthcare so people aren’t so burdened by potential healthcare costs if they get sick or in an accident
  3. Raise the wages of the working class, especially the bottom 40% (600 million people) who are still living on an average income of 1000 yuan (~$150) per month - raise their income and you won’t have an overcapacity problem

This is a wealth distribution problem, and that wealth is being funneled into the financial sector because local governments had taken out huge loans to finance the infrastructure and housing market over the past decade, and find themselves unable to pay back after Covid decimated the local finances, and as the property market bubble bursts since 2021.

And the local governments had to self-finance because back in 1994, the central government decided that their tax revenues were inadequate to finance the SOEs all across the country (it received only ~20% of the total tax revenues while local/municipal governments, especially the rich coastal provinces with export market, kept the rest). This is because China’s economic model follows the neoclassical theory - that the government is run like a household: it has to earn the tax revenue before it is allowed to spend.

As such, we have the Tax Sharing Reform that further decentralized the economy, with the local governments having to pay much more tax to the central government (~75% goes to the central government) while being burdened with financing the SOEs themselves.

This led the Northeast Three provinces (where China’s heavy industrial SOEs were concentrated) to mass privatize. It is estimated that at least 40 million workers became unemployed during the mass privatization wave from 1996-2002, a trend that would not be reversed until China joined the WTO and turned itself into a “world factory” in the early 2000s.

But the most important legacy of the 1994 Tax Sharing Reform was that local/municipal governments realized that they could no longer rely on the central government funding, so they had to seek their own sources of non-tax revenues (that would not be taken by the central government), and that include private investments and land revenues. The ticking time bomb was already laid back in the 1990s due to how the decentralization of the economy was arranged.

So, it comes back to wealth inequality. The wealth are being used to service the massive amount of debt that the local governments had taken out and save the investors, and did not go to the working class. And this is allowed to happen because the central government believes in the IMF “balance the budget” formula, and is extremely hesitant to run a deficit to give people the money to spend.

[-] WrongOnTheInternet@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

I would add the impact of lack of central government funding on health services in the 80s and 90s, but agree 100 percent

[-] godlessworm@hexbear.net 27 points 2 months ago

the only thing the us would ever put before profit is even more profit

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 2 months ago

It reeks of the same liberal bs which gave us "High Speed Rail isnt profitable!"

[-] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

They may be trying to save the planet, BUT AT WHAT COST

[-] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

Socialism is the most cost-effective solution to climate change. The longer they put off the transition the more it will cost to make the switch. Capitalism is barreling toward a terrible business decision. It’s a bit of a coincidence.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 39 points 2 months ago

Energy, food, clothing, construction, computing, media and entertainment are the essential components of every modern society. If you have all of them you will be stable, if you're #1 in many of them you will be in defacto leadership of global modern society as everyone will look to you for the latest innovation. What remains after that is predicting what shakeup is next and leading in that too.

[-] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 months ago

China is already leading the world in the first 4 and will be leading in the last 3 before 2030.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah media and entertainment are the hardest ones. American soft power from propaganda in both of these is incredibly strong and will be the last to get taken.

[-] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 38 points 2 months ago

Means have been seized

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago

Should have built those solar FREAKIN' roadways.

[-] VibeCoder@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago

That was such an American solution to solar

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

Me explaining renewables to an American: “So imagine a highway…”

[-] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

I'd prefer solar burgers

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

NGL that sounds like a kickass diner name.

[-] adultswim_antifa@hexbear.net 25 points 2 months ago

che-poggers

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
95 points (100.0% liked)

technology

24132 readers
549 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
context@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net
Wakmrow@hexbear.net
SwitchyandWitchy@hexbear.net