this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
236 points (89.9% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2168 readers
57 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh my god there are companies, guess there's no more socialism guys!1!1!!1
Just because there are companies does not mean that China is revisionist. And Tencent and China Evergrande have nothing to do with the government. Why would they?
edit: What do different wages have to do with socialism? Also it's CPC, not CCP.
We're talking about communism here not socialism, I didn't say China doesn't have socialism
I'm confused. Do you expect China to be instantly fully communist without money or class? Do you know that China started as a poor and feudal country and has constantly been under pressure and sanctions from the west?
It's like giving you control of an island full of people with almost no food and enemies thirsting to attack at any moment. Go on, build communism.
No, I'm saying China is a capitalist oligarchy. Currently, right now. I don't believe it can ever become communism with the current people still in power. That can be debatable, but what they are right now is definitely not communism, and that's all I was saying
Yes, it's not communism right now. But Xi Jinping is not a 'capitalist oligarch'. And China has pulled millions out of poverty, build an advanced public transport system, given massive amounts of aid to third-world countries while helping them develop, and has cracked down on corruption. If this is a 'capitalist oligarchy' then I will gladly support it.
I mean, I would also call the US a capitalist oligarchy, wouldn't call Biden an oligarch, and would say they've done the same in the past, so yeah I would still call it that personally. That's generally how industrialisation under capitalism goes. I'd even go as far as to say the US and UK had a lot of influence on it getting where it is in the first place, and it's very difficult to do trade with the west in this world without shifting towards capitalism. (Not impossible, but difficult)
Edit: In the definition of oligarchy, a small group of people hold power. I take that as relatively small, so maybe I'm mis using the term. Aristocracy might be a better term, but it's somewhere in the middle
The US has not eliminated poverty. Where did you get that from? In addition, the US has done nothing to help 3rd world countries at all, only to exploit them for resources. Before you say that's what China is doing too, it's not.
I did not say the US eliminated poverty and you didn't say China has eliminated poverty?
The US has indeed exploited countries for resources, but that does mean they haven't also helped in some cases, even if it's a minority of cases
China has eliminated poverty. And China helped in every case, while the US exploited in every case. I don't see how those two are similar.
You're splitting hairs at this point, I don't understand why
How is that "splitting hairs"? If I go to your house and help you build it, is that really the same as blasting it down with explosives?
No, I'm saying you took one small piece of what I said and latched on to it. Let's say the US has never helped another country before for sake of argument. It doesn't change the fact that I see both countries as capitalist aristocracies
Even if China is a capitalist aristocracy, it's done mostly good for the world. Besides, having rich people does not make a country an aristocracy.
I did not say having rich people makes a country an aristocracy, not did I say China has done no good for the world. You assumed that.
Alright, so your point is that China is run by capitalists, therefore it is revisionist and not true communism?
here
My point is that China has a capitalist market economy, and therefore it's not communism. Nothing to do with revisionism. Li's definition of capitalism seems to be narrow, I know it as the ability to own the means of production. If you can own a private company in China, and if that company can profit off of the work of people working for wages, I consider that capitalism. Xu Jiayin of Evergrande Group absolutely benefits from the work of people below him, and they are exchanging their labor for less than it generates. If you consider that to be a feature of communism, then we must have different definitions of communism
It's not communism, yes. But China is on the way to communism, and with what has happened already I am confident it will carry through.
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/264733
also here
Thank you, I will take a look at these. There is certainly a lot I don't know about China's government
I also want to add, I feel like I was legitimately trying to engage with you and you've become defensive/lumped me in with others, which isn't really fair
Not the person you replied to, but we get a decent amount of bad faith posters here from other instances, and you were repeating some of those points. I don’t think there was ill intent by either of you, but I can understand the confusion.
I hope we don’t feel like a hostile place and I hope you learned something!