Same reason the US has the most prisons even though it’s aiming to be the freest country.
Systemic racism to control the marginalized and ensure the poor stay with very few viable options?
It was always from the very start meant to maximized the freedom of the Landed classes, nobody else.
even though it’s aiming to be the freest country.
lol
Don’t make me tap the sign.
The sign: “Whatabout the USA”
They didn’t used to have billionaires, when Mao was in power. Strangely, a lot of Westerners seem to hate what China is now, but also hate what China was before, which seems very strange to me. “The reforms were bad and China should be more Maoist” that is a coherent position, “The reforms were good but should have gone further and become even more capitalist” that is also a coherent position. But “China is bad now because they allow billionaires but they were also bad when they didn’t allow billionaires” isn’t really coherent, it just seems like knee-jerk opposition to whatever they do or don’t do. Anyone who wants to offer critiques should be able to answer the simple question of whether the reforms were good or bad, whether they moved in the right or wrong direction.
On the off-chance that you actually want a serious answer to the question, let’s start with some history. Before the revolution, China’s average life expectancy was in the 30’s, it experienced frequent famines, had no access to medicine, and had had similarly awful conditions for literally thousands of years with no improvement for the average person. The revolution brought about huge improvements in life expectancy and the basic necessities of life (with the failure of the Great Leap Forward being an exception to this general trend).
However, while central planning works for providing basic necessities because the demand for those necessities is very predictable, it is not the most efficient regarding consumer goods. This was one of the failures that caused the collapse of the USSR, the desire for consumer good and the inability to compete domestically. Furthermore, despite the increases in life expectancy, virtually everyone in China still lived in extreme poverty. The reforms in the 80s were intended to address this, and they were wildly successful at it:
In the words of Deng, it doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice. It doesn’t really matter if a policy is ideologically “pure,” so long as it provides clear material benefits for the common people.
Where I’m standing, the whole point of having any sort of political beliefs at all is to figure out which policies will improve people’s lives. And lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the span of 40 years, can you name a more successful policy, ever, in all of history?
I think the position of those people is “Maoism was bad, the reforms were good, but they overcorrected”. Imho a perfectly coherent position as well. Quality of life in modern China is surely better than during the Mao era, and not only because if material wealth, but surely this current state is not perfect. Far from it, if you ask me.
You mean people don’t like that millions of people starved to death when Mao killed at the intellectuals? Yeah, I could see why people might have a bad view of that.
Precisely. Among massive corruption, a decadent ruling elite, and some less than ideal foreign politics, if I remember correctly.
Just because one thing is bad, it doesn’t mean that the other extreme is good. Maoism had massive flaws, but it transformed a practically medieval country ruled by warlords into a single, somewhat industrialised nation. The reforms by Deng and others, including Xi, turned it into a country with a half-decent standard of living and competitive economy. But they introduced other problems, such as massive wealth inequality and environmental issues.
And yet, China has delivered substantially lower average incomes than its peers. It’s not even close. The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.
Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.
The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.
I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources? I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?
The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.
Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.
Sorry, which countries are we talking about again? There’s not that many countries in East Asia. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan all benefited from foreign investment and trade, and again, with much smaller populations.
If you’re going to argue that the embargo on China was an inevitable result of its communist policies, well, that’s a big part of why they did the reforms in the 80’s.
The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.
That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.
It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.
I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources?
My source is the extremely biased communist newsletter known as The World Bank. Hopefully that’s not too far-left for you.
I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?
I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevant statistic for the above reasons.
I’m also not entirely sure why we’re comparing China to capitalist countries in the first place.
You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?
This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.
China received extensive aid from the USSR.
That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.
Do you understand what “per capita” means? It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.
It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.
Why? I see no reason for this. Larger countries have more resources. Everything you need to lift people out of poverty scales with population. If anything, it’s actually EASIER for large countries to lift themselves out of poverty. A tiny micro-nation with a population of 10,000 isn’t going to be building an aircraft factory. There’s a lot of minimum-size requirements on certain national infrastructure. If anything, the bigger, the easier it is to modernize. Yes, the larger population creates greater needs, but you also have more people to address those needs.
And China was not unique in having disconnected rural populations. Small countries and big countries both have isolated rural areas.
I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevent statistic for the above reasons.
It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries. Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”
You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?
Yeah, because I didn’t make any claims about per-capita income. That’s how sources work. I’m not going to provide sources for claims I didn’t make, if you’re just curious about some random fact, you can look it up yourself.
China received extensive aid from the USSR.
Lol? That’s a joke right?
You never heard about a little thing called the Sino-Soviet split? Even before that, the Soviets had plenty of their own problems, they were nowhere near as wealthy as the US and were struggling to survive and rebuild from WWII, and again, that much smaller aid for a much shorter period of time was distributed to a much larger population.
Also worth noting that the USSR initially supported the KMT over the CPC, seeing the CPC as too small and weak to be viable and the KMT as a lesser evil to the Japanese and expecting China to go through a capitalist stage of development.
Also, I thought we were discussing the Dengist reforms, which happened in the 80’s? The USSR wasn’t even around for much longer, even if they had been aiding them, which they very famously weren’t.
Do you understand what “per capita” means?
Yes I know what per capita means.
It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.
Not really, no.
Why? I see no reason for this.
Because, for one thing, modernization in developing countries is dependent on foreign technologies that have to spread to a much wider area, and that takes time and resources (resources that China lacked, because so many people were on the brink of starvation). If a big rich superpower says, “Hey, I’m gonna plop a semiconductor factory on your little island” it’s going to have a pretty significant impact on the average income of said island.
It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries.
I don’t really understand why we’re comparing countries.
Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”
That is not remotely close to anything I’ve said or believe.
I said things about the success of the policy of the reforms and opening up in the 80’s, and you’re bring up all these other countries that I said nothing about and trying to compare them on absolute terms for some reason. I’m not saying one country is better than another country, I’m just looking at the effects of a particular policy. If you want to argue whether your dad could beat up my dad, you’ll have to find someone else to do that with.
Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland
And? China literally owns the 4th largest land mass in the world. So which variables are allowed in this math and which aren’t? Maybe if you give us a list we can defeat your delusion more swiftly.
Which variables are allowed in the math depends on what the point of the comparison is. And as I said, I’m not really sure what the point of comparing these countries is. It’s pretty apples to oranges and doesn’t really tell us anything about the efficacy of China’s reforms in the context of their specific conditions.
The fact that there’s such a difference in landmass is just another reason why it doesn’t make sense to compare the two. If you want to compare China to another country for some reason, it would probably make sense to compare it to a country with more similar conditions, like India perhaps.
Youre actually completely wrong about extreme poverty AND extreme poverty in China.
Thw World Bank’s definitions of ‘extreme poverty’ are completelt stupid. Thhe World Bank has stated that they consider 1.25USD/day to be ‘extreme poverty’ … who here could live off of 1.25USD /day? Could you live off of that? Even in China? Even in Nigeria you cant live off of that.
ALSO deng’s reforms increased the people in China living beneath the BASICS NEEDS POVERTY LINE which is a much better measure of extreme poverty since the BASIC NEEDS POVERTY LINE or BNPL measures rhe BASIC NEEDS that a person needs
Citations here and in the description of the video : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RStKklOC-Z4&t=926s&pp=ygUqYWxsIHlvdXIgcHJvYmxlbXMgaGF2ZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgaW4gY29tbW9u
Be better.
You’re losing
PROVE that Im losing.
You’re doing that for me, thank you!
And lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the span of 40 years, can you name a more successful policy, ever, in all of history?
Democracy. I really hate this untestable argument as if we could go back in time and do A|B test to see which framework would have lifted people out of poverty the fastest. Taiwan is richer and more free than China despite being democratic, so is Japan, South Korea - what now? Which dicks do we measure and do we start at the balls or just the shaft?
I really hate this untestable argument as if we could go back in time and do A|B test to see which framework would have lifted people out of poverty the fastest.
What?? Then why even discuss anything about anything?
If you’re criticizing China’s policies, surely the point of that criticism is that you think different policies would have been more effective.
It’s also not entirely an untestable counterfactual because we can examine every other political faction that had a reasonable chance of controlling China, and see what their leadership looked like in practice, and make reasonable extrapolations based on that.
-
The Nationalists did absolutely nothing to help the rural poor, embezzled foreign aid, and were more preoccupied with hunting down their domestic enemies than repelling the genocidal fascist invaders. Chiang Kai-Shek literally had to be captured by his own bodyguards to be pressured into defending the country. Life expectancy remained completely flat during his rule.
-
The fascist, genocidal Japanese invaders weren’t a good option for obvious reasons.
-
How about having no centralized authority at all? That’s what they had during the warlord period, a time of chaos and conflict that left the country vulnerable and did nothing to improve things for anyone.
-
Before that, there was the Qing dynasty, an authoritarian monarchy which was so assured of its superiority that they completely failed to adapt to foreign innovations and technologies, out of pride, even when it was clear that those technologies were superior.
-
Then you have the various European powers, carving the country up to divy up the resources between each other, while getting half the country addicted to opium.
-
And, returning to how things played out historically, we have the one and only faction that had any intention whatsoever of helping the hundreds of millions of starving farmers, which doubled life expectancy within a generation and then adapted to changing conditions and enacted policies which, again, brought 800 million people out of extreme poverty. And the whole reason they won the revolution was because the starving Chinese peasants could tell that they were the only ones who gave two shits about helping them.
Which dicks do we measure and do we start at the balls or just the shaft?
I’m the one trying to avoid this pointless dick-measuring contest between countries with vastly different conditions, despite everyone else trying to draw me into it. I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t know why we’re comparing countries. Why don’t you ask WoodScientist whose dicks we measure, since he’s the one trying to measure dicks?
What?? Then why even discuss anything about anything?
I’m confused by your reply here. This is entirely limited to this scenario of false attribution. As we can’t verify this in any meaningful extend due to - as you yourself pointed out - every country and culture being invredibly different. So why are you OK with attributing success to chinese policy but not failure?
At the end of the day the historic justification magic doesn’t matter. I see today how unjust and miserable China is despite what tiktok might paint you. Not having internet is my litmus test and China fails this, I don’t understand how can people justify this. And please don’t try to diminish the great firewall of China - it’s really fucking bad.
As we can’t verify this in any meaningful extend due to - as you yourself pointed out - every country and culture being invredibly different. So why are you OK with attributing success to chinese policy but not failure?
I’m so confused by this conversation. Let’s recap.
Originally, OP asked why China has billionaires if it’s aiming to be socialist. I replied that the reforms that allowed billionaires also resulted in 800 million people escaping extreme poverty. WoodScientist randomly started drawing comparisons between the PRC and Taiwan, and I said that it’s apples and oranges, and that I didn’t see the relevance to what I had said. Then you started providing even more reasons why the comparison isn’t really valid, acting as if that contradicted my position in some way, which was even more confusing. You added that you didn’t like looking at other possible routes China could have gone, because it’s untestable.
Now, having established that you don’t like comparing China to other countries (calling it “dick measuring”), and also that you don’t like comparing other historical possibilities (calling them “untestable”) you’re now accusing me of being unwilling to attribute failure to Chinese policy.
First of all, which failure are you talking about? There are plenty which I’m willing to acknowledge. But also, on what basis could you call any policy a success or failure? You’ve thrown away all your epistemology. If we discount comparisons to other places, and also discount comparisons to other possibilities, then what can we look at to determine if a given policy was a success or failure?
I see today how unjust and miserable China is despite what tiktok might paint you.
Do you? What’s your point of reference for that? Some hypothetical ideal that exists only in your mind?
All I did is call you out that you can’t draw conclusions from n=1 of a policy so you can’t attribute chinese authoritarian policy for “getting people out of poverty”. So your glazing of Chinese autocrats is exactly that - glazing.
That’s completely absurd. This is the dumbest thing anyone’s said this conversation.
The sample size isn’t “n=1” it’s n=800,000,000. It’s clearly visible from the graph that I posted that the reduction in poverty began immediately after the reforms, and then continued extremely consistently on an extremely large scale.
In case you need a refresher on what the data looks like:
You’re just so committed to shitting on every single thing that China does that you’re willing to throw out all reason and logic, completely ignore obvious facts, and throw out any means of evaluating any policy just to avoid the conclusion that China may have done a single thing right.
What other possible explanation even is there? You’re just very objectively wrong.
Lol keep moving the goal post boot licker
-
So much ignorance on display here in this thread. People talking out of their ass with no clue or care why and how China has implemented economic reforms and development policy. No clue what communists even are much less the details of how they manage the economy of a developing socialist state within a capitalist global economy. Just thought-terminating clichés about billionaires and so-called “state capitalism”.
Fun fact: you can actually read the justifications for why socialist countries managed by proletariat governments have implemented limited market systems in their economies in China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, even Korea. Their thoughts are public!
I might go one further and suggest this is why the “Just tax the billionaires” line never actually delivers the goods. It’s a classic Belling-The-Cat problem, because its very easy to say “Tax the Billionaires” but its very difficult to move forward with a policy that does the actual thing, without billionaires pooling their resources to prevent you from accessing any of the levers of power.
You need a certain collectivist worldview to even attempt the problem of regulating and sanctioning a bourgeois class. And when you’re brainwashed by some combination of out-of-context Adam Smith quotes and reskinned Milton Friedman / Ayn Rand videos, good fucking luck.
Fun fact: you can actually read the justifications for why socialist countries managed by proletariat governments have implemented limited market systems in their economies in China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, even Korea. Their thoughts are public!
If you know where to look and you trust the source material and you’ve got the patience to work through the finer details, sure.
But that’s the sort of learning you typically need to tackle in grade school if you want it to stick. Open minds and lots of free time are necessary to get this kind of rigorous political education. By the time you’ve had your head crammed full of cable news fearmongering and employer-sponsored propaganda, you’ll be allergic to the very idea of taking a book like Fanshen or The Bolivian Diary at face value.
I somewhat echo you feelings on ignorance and “China bad!”, but definitely do not agree with the characterisation of China as a “proletariat government”.
The workers do not have meaningful democratic control over society in China, and to claim they do requires some next-level mental gymnastics.
If one believes in control of society by the workers, as socialists ought to by definition (at least, by my understanding), one really ought not tout China as a government to emulate…
What do you mean? Are the Chinese billionaires a good thing?
Instead of using the term good, I think the standard here is asking, “Do the billionaires have more power than the some other group? In this cases CPC.” And if the CPC has more power, “What role does the CPC imagine using the billionaires to development of society and the party goals?”
“The ends justify the means.”
Surely that’s never caused any problems…
It depends if you think capital circulation is a necessary step along the way to a more just world. For Marxists, they see it as just another step in the process to socialism. There are reasons, and I’m happy to describe the theory if you’d like, but that’s what they believe. They see it as a process they can control verse a process in which they become exploited.
I’m not really asking about capital circulation. I’m interested specifically in the billionaires. So why the billionaires?
I can understand the logic of having a market-based economy. It’s a very effective means of achieving compound economic growth. But a market economy does not require billionaires. There are numerous more equitable models that China could have built its system around. For example, they could have built their market economy based entirely around worker-owned co-ops. Co-ops can compete just fine in markets. Or, they could have gone with the current structure, but put in place a wealth cap. That’s been proposed before even in the US.
Why couldn’t China build a market economy, but just have a hard rule of “no one is allowed to amass more than X amount?” Even if people couldn’t hoard more than say, $100 million, that still gives people plenty of incentive to start new businesses, get an education, work hard, etc.
There are numerous more equitable models that China could have built its system around. For example, they could have built their market economy based entirely around worker-owned co-ops. Co-ops can compete just fine in markets
Well, you’ll be quite pleased to know that a significant part of China’s market reforms, has been the development of worker co-ops as a significant part of its economy.
Why couldn’t China build a market economy, but just have a hard rule of “no one is allowed to amass more than X amount?” Even if people couldn’t hoard more than say, $100 million, that still gives people plenty of incentive to start new businesses, get an education, work hard, etc.
Because they established markets to bring in foreign capital investment. Foreign companies, wanting comparatively cheap labor, were encouraged to partner with Chinese (usually state owned) firms, to access said cheap labor. Over the decades, the Chinese have taken this foriegny capital, invested it in its own domestic economic development, and encouraged the establishment of worker co-ops, in place of foreign firms. Huawei, for instance, is a worker co-op, and came out of the capital generated from partnerships foreign telecom companies.
Now, a private, national bourgeoise does exist, and people have gotten very rich. But China also puts those people on an INCREDIBLY tight leash. The reason they don’t limit the wealth you can amass, is because they wouldn’t want to limit the generation of capital that could be spent on economic development goals. Instead, they use the slightest steps out of line to seize those rich people’s wealth for thepublic good.
I’m interested specifically in the billionaires. So why the billionaires?
Essentially, the TL;DR is that billionaires in China are a byproduct of market reforms designed to generate domestic capital, and development. While they’re there, and their presence creates contradictions, they don’t have the ability to impact politics the way they can in the west.
The Chinese state, being a socialist state, seeks to manage the contradictions of market reforms, and funnel the gains from them for socialist ends. Those ends being the development of the productive forces (domestic industry, ending poverty, etc.), while also developing the relations of production, via state ownership of major industries, and encouraging the growth of cooperatives in the consumer goods market, and workers Congresses and party committees in nominally private businesses, to give workers a greater say in firm management.
I can’t actually answer why they don’t set a hard limit of how much they will let some one accumulate or as for why they didn’t use coops. Both of these are counterfactuals that would be difficult even if I knew all the internal discussions. For example, you’d have to look closely at Deng’s policies and the subsequent three represents during the early 2000s to see what the discussion around coops was. Hard to say what the thinking was that precluded coops from the discussion.
It’s easier to say what they are doing and the policies they are enacting. I believe they have a goal of reducing inequality with a goal of a Gini index of .35 by 2035. They are focusing on a common prosperity goal. This has led to increased donations and contributions from the wealthy to social causes. With the common prosperity project, they hope to increase the middle class and reduce the rural-urban divide as well. I think there are several other goals.
I don’t see setting a hard limit on whether or not one is a billionaire contributing to these goals and then runs the risk of creating resentment of a particular class that the party needs to grow their level of prosperity.
Edit: Prior to the 90s, there government supported state-owned and collective enterprises. But they weren’t growing quick enough to meet the needs of the CPC.
Meanwhile, the growing number of entrepreneurs were gaining power, but no access to representation. So the CPC decided to bring them in to the party. This would reduce the likeliness of a counter revolution.
Theoretically, coops struggled with massive, capital-intensive investments. They can’t scale or absorb risk because their capital is in the form of worker’s equity.
When coops fail, it can be doubly devastating. Workers lose their jobs and equity when the firm goes bankrupt. Just as bad, though, there can be a prolonged declined as the coops would go under they would slash their pay to keep the dying firm alive.
Coops seem great when the economic engine is humming along, but if you are looking for rapid growth, you need large capital investments and the ability to fail quickly or massively succeed.
China did not press a magical “make billionaires from clay” button. It enacted market reforms, after the failure in leaping directly from a largely feudal economy to a collectivist one, to progress the development of its economy within the global capitalist market system. Billionaires are an unfortunate symptom of the condradictions inherent to this system. Unlike most countries, however, the chinese government recognizes these billionaires as the threat to the public that they are, and tends to be much more cautious about them as a result, resisting their influence in state affairs.
I think the billionaires are just a symptom of the capitalist global economy. China uses the wealth generated by the billionaires to further their goals of working towards communism.
Interesting, and I thought it was the workers who generated the wealth. Perhaps it should not belong to them after all then. Why tax the billionaires at all if they’re the ones generating the wealth?
Are you an actual child? Serious answers only please
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a valid excuse for being this painfully naive then I would like to know in advance before I hurt your feelings about it
You’re why I do this. I’ve never seen an easier group to ragebait than .ml users/lemmy communists. I don’t care even a tiny bit about China or their billionaires. The fact you’re viewing a shitpost through the lense of winning and loosing is the best thing I could have hoped for making this post. Look through every comment I’ve made here, are any even slightly high effort? Its all the easiest bullshit talking points to keep people unable to discern context riled up. I’m having a fantastic time.
Not even a little believable, you’re either some sort of deeply incompetent fed or profoundly lonely, maybe both lol
If you love capitalism and are just being a silly goose say “your mother”.
China does not claim to be a fully communist society yet. Official ideology describes the country as being in a long-term developmental phase of socialism; communism is portrayed as a future goal. However, if they continue as they have been treating people like mere numbers, keeping them in poverty under total control, while billionaires amass wealth they will never achieve that anyway. In a society that ideologically advocates for overcoming class distinctions and capitalist exploitation, enormous private fortunes exist. Entrepreneurs like Jack Ma have at times amassed wealth running into the billions. At the same time, the Party controls key sectors of the economy and can exert massive pressure on companies. That transitional phase has gone spectacularly wrong. That is not how communism is defined. Private property is accepted only as long as it remains compatible with the Party’s political interests. This is very convenient for the government: it can harness the productivity and innovation of capitalism without adopting the political power structures of a liberal political system.
Their own brand of capitalism is one tied to a penultimate patriotic goal, where all enterprises are convinced by the Party they are working to achieve supremacy by 2049 where by that time, the Mainland topples and humiliates what they see as American hegemony and exceptionalism, while expecting the rest of the world – including developing countries who are now tied to the Mainland through heavy imports – to acknowledge its being figuratively the Middle Kingdom.
This is the China that can say “no”, and a book that once vigorously supported the idea of confronting American hegemony and was banned briefly, is now cashing in on the winnings as its authors are seen as prophetic.
Oh Jesus Christ. They’re as communist as you can humanly get currently. I hate this crap where people go “well xyz isn’t full communist”. No country can or will be 100% communist, socialist, or capitalist. It’s basically impossible. They can claim whatever they want. Half the shit they say is made up anyways.
But. they are at communist as possible.
Poop fart and fart poop
But. they are at communist as possible.
Educate yourself. China is de-facto the biggest and most successful capitalist economy on this planet, under a totalitarian regime that uses “communist” in their name like televangelists use “christian”.
Try harder
Cos playing at communism at best. China is a totalitarian fascist state.
Words mean things, try looking them up before using them in sentences
Worry about your own country, yank
They’re both bad. China is full of pollution issues (though admittedly making progress), global blackmail (well mostly Africa) and terrible (virtually non-existent?) privacy. And a totalitarian capitalist state.
USA is an Idiocracy also full of pollution issues, mind numbing idiocy, and a declining imperialist empire full of (and I really can’t emphasize how many) idiots that’s a cancer spreading fascism and oligarchy.
Finland is, well, here. The Prime Minister did some corruption with an ice hockey stadium, but that’s recent and we’re waiting to see if he’ll be jailed. If he isn’t, we’ll be joining the ranks of corrupt capitalistic oligarchies I suppose, but we’ve had an okayish track record so far. Never invaded other countries (USA and to a much lesser extent, China) or tried to annihilate others (Taiwan).
Not a chin defender typically but why is what China is doing in africa black mail? Especially in comparison to traditional banking loans used to leverage natural resources away from africa?
If China is a 10 on badness scale, then the US is at 10000000. I won’t tolerate people even talking about the two as equals.
Damn, you really bit the propaganda apple didn’t you?
Yes the US is worse, but not by much. Your hypothetical level would be closer to 12 or something. 13-14 because of Trump.
When 18-20 would be Nazi Germany
The US is worse than Nazi Germany lol. You literally dropped two nukes on Japan, created the terror state of Israel, fucked up the geopolitics of the entire world and are now sponsoring the rebirth on fascism world wide. Hitler was inspired by the US ffs. And that’s not to speak of the genocide of native Americans. So please stop being such a butthurt yank and do some self reflection. Trump is what the US always has been, without the pretense of being civilised.
In the last 50 years, US sanctions killed 38 million people.
Not to mention the Vietnam war, the American prison system, the treatment of refugees… God the list is so long this idiot above in the comments thinks it all began with le bad orange CHEETO man. But then again, what to expect from the dumbest population of all time
In a sufficiently capitalist society, it is impossible to distinguish the dumb from the propagandized.
How many illegal wars of aggression has China started in the last 50 years? What about the US? How many civilians has China killed in the last 50 years? The US?
I hate baseball.
First and foremost, there’s no such thing as a “communist country”. Communism is a very late stage of socialist development when all class contradictions have been abolished. We don’t know what that might look like, but the consensus is that we can’t really talk about a country being communist but rather an overall state of the world.
Secondly, China has a fairly good grip over its billionaire class. They don’t have the class power their class has in the US, Europe, or the rest of the western capitalist world. The capitalist class in China is subject to the wishes of the working class represented by the party with its over 100 million members.
100% they have a class based system it’s just not talked about.
They do have a bourgeoisie class and a peasent class.
They have doctors, lawyers, construction workers, government employees, billionaires and unprecedented wealth within families.
Then they have the peasant class the rice paddy farmers, the package sorters, the food delivery drivers, the minimum income workers living in cramped apartments and the unemployed.
100% they have a class based system it’s just not talked about.
It’s literally on their flag though. Those stars aren’t just decoration, they stand for the peasants, workers, petite bourgeois and national bourgeois, unified and led by the big star: the communist party, and its allies.
China is a people’s republic, which historically would mean that those various class strata would be represented in government, by various parties and mass organizations. Not just a single communist party (see, East Germany, Socialist Poland, or the early DPRK). As China has developed its productive forces, however, a decision was made to allow the Bourgeoisie to be an element within the communist party itself, so they couldn’t form their own separate base of political power. While that brings contradictions, they’re far more manageable than they would be otherwise.
They’re pretty open about all of this.
Yes, that’s why it’s not communist. But it is socialist, because the working class controls the government and holds the reins of the economy.
The 200 million rural farmers control the country!
No wait, the 400 million service workers control the country!
No wait, it is the 500 million middle class that control the country!
No wait, it is the 130,000 of the wealthy class that controls the country!
No wait, it is the 320 billionaires that control the country!
No wait, it is the 2,878 Congressional members that control the country!
No wait, it is seven leaders who control the country!
No wait, it is Xi who controls the country!
wacky shit, aint it.
Yes, exactly like the working class in the US controls the government and holds the reins of the economy.
Except not. Tell me more about how ignorant you are about political economy theory and how China actually functions.
ohhhhhhhhhhh it’s evolved. I’m going off of an old system:
Class structure and earnings
In the last half century, China’s class structure has undergone a major transformation, evolving from a simple system of three socialist strata (cadres, workers, and peasants) in the pre-reform era to a hybrid class system mixing capitalist features with aspects of the previous socialist class system. The Chinese market-oriented reforms and the expansion of the private sector changed property relations and generated a class structure with striking similarities to that of other capitalist societies (Bian Citation2002). Previous research has adopted multiple approaches to understand the class dynamics and earnings in transitional China. Some research on urban China applies Goldthorpe’s neo-Weberian class theory to the Chinese context (Zou Citation2015) while others have adapted Wright’s neo-Marxist class framework to explain class-based earnings inequality (Li, Qin, and Chen Citation2012; Lin and Wu Citation2009). Lin and Wu (Citation2009) compared different class schema and concluded that a modified neo-Marxian class approach (albeit one that incorporated hukou) best captured the evolving class structure in transitional China. They also demonstrated that class has become the major source of earnings disparities among Chinese workers.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21620555.2021.1878019#d1e358
Hukou: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
Hukou is incorporated into almost every Chinese socioeconomic and political system
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The capitalist class in China is subject to the wishes of the working class represented by the party with its over 100 million members.
LMAO. Do you actually believe that garbage yourself?
The simple truth is that China is the most efficient capitalist country in the world right now - they combine a totalitarian regime with a huge economy and an actual self-serving but smart understanding of capitalism. They are simply better at playing that game that the rest of the world.
What we don’t see from the outside is to what degree becoming rich enables you to take influence on the political system. What we do see is that the Chinese “communist” (muhaha) party has an iron grip on the country, but also that they are strongly intertwined with what you call “the capitalist class” (i.e. rich parasites).
an actual self-serving but smart understanding of capitalism
Welcome to marxism-leninism. Socialist state building is about achieving progress for the people. That can mean building up production forces and engaging in capitalism, as long as the capitalist class is subject to the peoples wishes.
as long as the capitalist class is subject to the peoples wishes.
Yeah I think that’s the part where you missed the news flash about the Chinese state.
Wordy and condescending but does absolutely nothing to prove them wrong, great job!
Cope
In what way? There’s nothing to cope about
You know exactly what way.
You’re losing and you know it
I’ve never won harder
Embarassing if true
China has maintained enough of a market system to avoid our usual direct efforts at overthrow or embargo, as long as our billionaire ruling class sees their markets as an opportunity outweighing the threat of their government they’ll block any push by our government to interfere with their access to those markets. Not only did that work perfectly but they actually managed to get their greatest global rival to voluntarily de-industrialize and hand the vast majority of our productive capacity over to them without a single shot fired. Every last bit of argument here and elsewhere about whether they’re communist or not is just cope from people whose civilizations have never pulled off anything half that slick in their entire worthless existences.
They do have famously good working conditions, high wages and quality of life. Their working class is in a meat grinder to an extent I haven’t seen anywhere else. Especially unskilled laborors.
Their working class is in a meat grinder to an extent I haven’t seen anywhere else.
Then you really haven’t looked. Chinese working people have paid vacation and sick leave, low-cost public housing in abundance with nearly 90% of the population owning a primary residence, and retirement in the 50s for women and 60s for men. Per-capita debt is about 10% of the American population. The adult literacy rate is 98%, 20-pts higher than their American peers. Life expectancy is eclipsing the US, as theirs rises and ours falls. Instances of suicide are much lower. Incarceration rates are lower. Yadda yadda yadda.
Now compare the Chinese working class to folks living in The Philippines or Pakistan or South Africa or Brazil. Nevermind Egypt or Russia or Qatar or - god forbid - Haiti or Palestine. It’s not even close.
Source?
Essential China Leave Policy Requirements
-
Annual Leave: 5-15 days based on years of service (5 days for 1-10 years, 10 days for 10-20 years, 15 days for 20+ years)
-
Sick Leave: 3-24 months depending on service length and local regulations
-
Maternity Leave: Minimum 98 days nationally, extended to 128-190 days by provincial regulations
-
Public Holidays: 7 statutory holidays with additional adjusted days totaling 11-16 non-working days annually
-
Critical Compliance: Provincial and municipal variations significantly impact leave entitlements
Edit:
Somethin ain’t addin up
Sounds like you don’t know how to use a calculator.
I don’t
That’s a great step you’re making towards the realization that you’ve been lied to for decades about how great the US (and a bench of other western countries) are really.
Idk life is pretty sweet for me and it started out pretty shitty.
-
Their working class is in a meat grinder to an extent I haven’t seen anywhere else
You’ve never been to a global south country I take it?
China has a lot further to go to reach parity with the first world, but its nowhere near as bad as it was 20 years ago when you could see videos of children working inside machine presses.
Meanwhile conditions remain similar to what they were 20 years ago in India, Bangladesh or El Salvador.
Rapid industrialization has a cost, which anyone in any western country could have told you 150 years ago. But China is continually improving, and I would expect them to be similar to US working conditions of 20 years ago within the next decade. And I say US conditions of 20 years ago, because our conditions have backtracked since then, and will likely continue to backtrack because capitalists own the government and good working conditions are a barrier to profit.
Cool story kiddo
Cope
Lol no u
If the United States is your favorite country say “your mother”.
Your mother
You ever see the packinging centers go what appears to be fast forward speed on YouTube but irl because of the 11.11 sales? Insane how quick they can get through sorting a dumpster full of products.
I’ve never seen it irl but I’ve seen how fast they can get though sorting in videos and it makes you wonder why people get so good at something if they’re gonna replace that with robots?
It’s gonna be such a spit in the face when the robots take over those jobs.
We don’t need donations, we just need to tax them at the same level we’re taxing regular workers. And since their fortunes are growing at double digit rates, a small annual wealth tax wouldn’t hurt them either.
The community allows for the accumulation of wealth by providing services, security and labor. Therefore the community is entitled to a portion of the accumulated wealth in form of taxation.
No man is an island, and nobody becomes a billionaire from their own labor. Community matters.
Imagine living in Lebanon and not being a millionaire…
Even normal people there live in houses worth billions of Lebanese Pounds.
Ask Jack Ma what being a billionaire in China is worth.
Well yeah, he criticized a government labeled “communist”. He’s lucky to be alive. But, he’s still a billionaire and has homes in half a dozen countries.
I’m just trying to connect your reasoning here. Are you implying that billionaires should be brought to heel by popular power or private property should be respected? Do you believe property is an essential right that should give you a megaphone or not? I’m just saying billionaires don’t particularly laugh at Chinese state directives as in the meme.
Which part is causing confusion?
I dunno man, I put words together and put a question mark behind them. I don’t know if that means anything to you or not.
Now I’m the confused one
Now?
Everything I’ve said in this post so far is my genuine opinion and positively intentioned… I at no time would be sarcastic or engage in bait/intentionally bad faith in the shitposting community.
They’re a capitalist country.
Maybe the real shitpost was the comments we made along the way.
That was the ideal scenario
Imo there should be a law that limits the sum of assets everyone is allowed to have, say 1M-10M
Again overvalued positions in society are an issue too. People fuckin hate when I say no one should be able to make over 500k$/annually and its like if you can do that you’re automatically going to be seeking to consistently enhance either your own riches, someone else’s riches or generational wealth w/estate properties paid off in full for 2 lifetimes in a trust that no one can touch and then because rich people involve themselves with politics, even at a local level (you’d be surprised how many people are, “generous donors,” to their mayors for favors), they’d get away with being able to probably make it so the property never leaves the city.
You wanna stop the rich make it so they can’t earn as much.
OH wait but that whole cost of living and capitalism thing… Money is just a flawed concept and another thing people hate on me for saying is that humans need incentives to get things done. Whether it’s an award with praise or a cash bonus; by now humans need something in return, we’re not a naturally do something for nothing in return species.
This makes me wonder too. A lot of communists I met idolize China but China does not seem to me a communist country now.
