Yea it isn't generally a great industry as it is most often private sector work. Some enjoy it though.
As for fluency it is very country dependent if you need to speak the local language. A decent amount of the roles don't actually require it though obviously if you speak the language you will have opportunities for better roles.
I was just mentioning it as one of the few non STEM opportunities that exsist.
Non STEM fields are generally less in demand. Though English(and to a lesser extent other languages) teachers who are native speakers can get visas relatively easily to some countries. The impression I've gotten living in different countries is that for non STEM and non language you'd need at least a master's to be kind of in demand.
That said if you have a non STEM degree but canactually do the work in a STEM field you can get a visa.
Yea I can definitely understand how towards the end of the GPCR that reform and opening up would look tempting particularly with the state of the USSR and the lack of revolutions in the imperial core.
I think the comparison to the NEP is fair, however the NEP was only around for 7 years and reform and opening has been going on for close to 50 years. So this looks less temporary to solve an immediate issue and more like a permanent fixture. The increase in opening that they are pushing for also makes me think it is less likely to be reversed any time soon.
I think the controlling the new captialist class is a big if. Not in the sense of individuals but more on the promotion of capitalist ideology and their influence on culture which will lead to further erosion of communism. When I lived in China it did seem a lot more consumerist and capitalist than a lot of places I have lived in the West.
The CPC has done a good job of getting western capitalists to want access. They do have many skilled politicians and leaders. I would happily take Xi over many world leaders today, but I see the CPC as having stepped off the correct path. I don't think they are irredeemable in any way, I just don't see them pushing towards communism in the same ways they have in the past.
From The Governance of China vol 4 I would say the two sections that most make me think this way are:
Both of these sections deal with the special economic zones and free trade zones. Throughout vol 4 there are other points where more market oriented things are discussed but these two are where it is more of a focus. If I recall correctly from vols 1-3 there was a bit less discussion around these topics.
Additionally Xi's "Up and Out of Poverty" is very much about reform and opening up. It has a collection of his works from 1988-1990 so it makes sense that reform and opening up was a topic he mentioned frequently.
Great question! I'll look up some specifics for you on that.
In the meantime from People's Daily earlier this month not exactly Xi but shows the current trajectory of things: http://en.people.cn/n3/2023/0603/c90000-20027289.html
So a bit of background info, I've read all 4 volumes of The Governance of China.
Xi is most definitely in the same camp as the 'reform and open up' crowd, so a revisionist. He supports the market and wants to open more industries to the market and remove government involvement in some areas.
That said I can respect the crackdown on corruption and the elimination of poverty even though I don't like how pro private business it was
Have you been reading a lot of theory lately or is this your first dive in? Asking because it gets easier with practice.
Also, any parts that were particularly difficult for you that you'd like to discuss?
I am not familiar enough with the immigration situation in Cuba to answer that. Will need another comrade to assist with that information