If China had no billionaires, you’d be saying “how can it be socialist if it has millionaires!” If it had no millionaires you’d complain about people having thousands of dollars.
The PRC is a mixed economy, with the state-planned, socialist sector commanding the heights of the economy, and a smaller sector for capitalist development.
Sorry, but this amount of links in one post is kind of flooding the zone with shit. You can’t expect someone to go through them all, analyze them and prepare a response. That would take a week. Since many of those links are reddit disussions and youtube links, I’m inclined to say that you posted filler links to shut up any discussion. At least one news link is even paywalled. Whatever I answer now, you can say I haven’t read all of your links.
Some links are Chinese domestic opinions, which don’t really help - we all already know that China sees itself as socialist. And the majority of the news articles don’t point out that China is socialist. They only show that China isn’t a free market economy. Sentencing private businessmen to death for transgression, for example is not a trait of socialism. Having party members in your private multinational companies doesn’t make them owned by the people. Why does the country have private businessmen owning large companies at all? China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
Some links are Chinese domestic opinions, which don’t really help - we all already know that China sees itself as socialist.
Chinese people’s analysis, views and opinions on our country its guiding ideology and political system are irrelevant in your eyes? This stinks of western chauvinism. Is it only real socialism when white people agree it is?
China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
Please define socialism. If a workers state lead by a vanguard party managing the transition out of capitalism and defending revolutionary gains isn’t socialism because contradictions remain then I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
Chinese people’s analysis, views and opinions on our country its guiding ideology and political system are irrelevant in your eyes? This stinks of western chauvinism. Is it only real socialism when white people agree it is?
It is a bit early for playing the racism card, isn’t it? No, it doesn not matter at this point because it’s self-labeling. The Chinese people have a right to label themselves however they want.
Please define socialism. If a workers state lead by a vanguard party managing the transition out of capitalism and defending revolutionary gains isn’t socialism because contradictions remain then I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
The most simple definition. A socialist state is one where the workers own the means of production.
Let’s try your own definition:
Workes state - China is not led by workers. It has a class system and workers do not own the means of production. It is mainly owned by individuals - those are capitalists.
Vanguard party - this is not something a socialist society should have, but merely a perversion that every state trying to be socialist developed. Parties are for democracies, a socialist state does not need parties.
managing the transition out of capitalism - it cannot be called transitioning out of capitalism when some individuals gain unimaginable wealth while others don’t. This is a concentration of wealth and exactly the same is happening in “capitalist” countries. China is transitioning out of socialism.
Why does the country have private businessmen owning large companies at all? China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
You’re right, you didn’t read even a few of the links, and you’re proving the post correct.
You’re right, you didn’t read even a few of the links, and you’re proving the post correct.
I just wrote:
Whatever I answer now, you can say I haven’t read all of your links.
You obviously didn’t look at even a few of these links either! These links include pages and pages of discussions in several formus, inclunding reddit. There are several hours of youtube videos. There’s paywalled content! There are sites flagged by my virus protection. This not sharing information, this flooding. This is a way of shutting up any kind of disussion.
You obviously didn’t look at even a few of these links either!
The fact that they get memory-holed or paywalled after a few years isn’t my fault, but I’d be happy to update any ones that aren’t working with archived links.
This not sharing information, this flooding. This is a way of shutting up any kind of disussion.
Just silly. For one person its “too much info”, for another its “not enough”. AI really broke people’s brains. If they actually have to read some things and can’t be given a short summary, they call it “shutting down discussion”.
Just silly. For one person its “too much info”, for another its “not enough”. AI really broke people’s brains. If they actually have to read some things and can’t be given a short summary, they call it “shutting down discussion”.
I would accept this argument if you’d sent me one or two links to well-researched sources that were just very long. But you didn’t do that. What you provided is a mess. Most of the links I read through do not even provide any information about whether or not China can be called socialist. For example the news items about China executing businessmen. Others even contradict the argument of China being a socialist country.
Take this link
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/91liw2/comment/e2z3kzu/
It basically says that the Chinese economy is 50% socialist at maximum. This would support my opinion that China is actually transitioning away from socialism by its growing private sector. Having basic workers’ rights does not help this. Some capitalist countries have those too.
So face it: It’s not me being unable to process information. It’s you being unable to provide relevant information. You obviously can’t see the difference between what’s relevant for your argumentation and what is not. And expect others to sort it out.
The joke here is calling China “socialist”, right?
Edit: Be honest. How can you call a country socialist if it has billionaires?
If China had no billionaires, you’d be saying “how can it be socialist if it has millionaires!” If it had no millionaires you’d complain about people having thousands of dollars.
The PRC is a mixed economy, with the state-planned, socialist sector commanding the heights of the economy, and a smaller sector for capitalist development.
Is China State Capitalist?
Sorry, but this amount of links in one post is kind of flooding the zone with shit. You can’t expect someone to go through them all, analyze them and prepare a response. That would take a week. Since many of those links are reddit disussions and youtube links, I’m inclined to say that you posted filler links to shut up any discussion. At least one news link is even paywalled. Whatever I answer now, you can say I haven’t read all of your links. Some links are Chinese domestic opinions, which don’t really help - we all already know that China sees itself as socialist. And the majority of the news articles don’t point out that China is socialist. They only show that China isn’t a free market economy. Sentencing private businessmen to death for transgression, for example is not a trait of socialism. Having party members in your private multinational companies doesn’t make them owned by the people. Why does the country have private businessmen owning large companies at all? China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
Chinese people’s analysis, views and opinions on our country its guiding ideology and political system are irrelevant in your eyes? This stinks of western chauvinism. Is it only real socialism when white people agree it is?
Please define socialism. If a workers state lead by a vanguard party managing the transition out of capitalism and defending revolutionary gains isn’t socialism because contradictions remain then I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
It is a bit early for playing the racism card, isn’t it? No, it doesn not matter at this point because it’s self-labeling. The Chinese people have a right to label themselves however they want.
The most simple definition. A socialist state is one where the workers own the means of production.
Let’s try your own definition: Workes state - China is not led by workers. It has a class system and workers do not own the means of production. It is mainly owned by individuals - those are capitalists. Vanguard party - this is not something a socialist society should have, but merely a perversion that every state trying to be socialist developed. Parties are for democracies, a socialist state does not need parties. managing the transition out of capitalism - it cannot be called transitioning out of capitalism when some individuals gain unimaginable wealth while others don’t. This is a concentration of wealth and exactly the same is happening in “capitalist” countries. China is transitioning out of socialism.
Bleak, but possible.
You’re right, you didn’t read even a few of the links, and you’re proving the post correct.
I just wrote:
You obviously didn’t look at even a few of these links either! These links include pages and pages of discussions in several formus, inclunding reddit. There are several hours of youtube videos. There’s paywalled content! There are sites flagged by my virus protection. This not sharing information, this flooding. This is a way of shutting up any kind of disussion.
The fact that they get memory-holed or paywalled after a few years isn’t my fault, but I’d be happy to update any ones that aren’t working with archived links.
Just silly. For one person its “too much info”, for another its “not enough”. AI really broke people’s brains. If they actually have to read some things and can’t be given a short summary, they call it “shutting down discussion”.
I would accept this argument if you’d sent me one or two links to well-researched sources that were just very long. But you didn’t do that. What you provided is a mess. Most of the links I read through do not even provide any information about whether or not China can be called socialist. For example the news items about China executing businessmen. Others even contradict the argument of China being a socialist country. Take this link https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/91liw2/comment/e2z3kzu/
It basically says that the Chinese economy is 50% socialist at maximum. This would support my opinion that China is actually transitioning away from socialism by its growing private sector. Having basic workers’ rights does not help this. Some capitalist countries have those too.
So face it: It’s not me being unable to process information. It’s you being unable to provide relevant information. You obviously can’t see the difference between what’s relevant for your argumentation and what is not. And expect others to sort it out.
Also I don’t use AI.
By reading a book.
Oh “a book”? And what is this magical book that contains all truth about this subject matter?
That’s the actual hardest challenge for most westerners to pass.
Harry potter doesn’t count btw…
Harry Potter counts as -1 books.
One time I said something about China and a man on the internet told me to stick China in my urethra.