this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
79 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23277 readers
277 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's not loose at all. The means of production are currently controlled by the bourgeoisie through private ownership and the bourgeois state. If instead those are transferred to state ownership controlled by the proletariat it is then under their control. The CPC structure itself plays a major role here.

You're the one glossing over this. It feels like you have something closer to the anarchist position on the topic rather than a marxist one. Marx's Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy is pretty explicit about the marxian difference to that. He quotes Bakunin and responds so it reads a lot like a forum thread too lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well now I'm just confused, is China socialist/communist or not? Because if the bourgeois own and run things....

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What are you confused about?

50% of China's economy is state owned enterprise. 12% is mixed ownership. 38% is private. Many of these "private" companies are also not bourgeois. Remember Huawei? That huge phone company the west freaks out about? It is a huge worker-owned private company. The state is controlled by the proletariat using a modified variant of soviet democracy, Cuba, Vietnam and several others also use variously tweaked and evolved over time versions of the soviet system. Constituencies are small and representatives are usually known well, anyone can recall this reps with a simple majority vote, reps take part in the local council and the members of that council vote to select a representative for the council at the next tier up, that council then does the same, this continues up the chain many tiers all the way up to the supreme assembly. Every single person at the supreme assembly has worked at every single level, working all the way up, every single one of them achieved actual results at every single tier of councils in order to get selected by that council to represent it higher up. Xi was born and lived in a literal cave in poverty for much of his early life, this is the very epitome of working class control with a democratically determined meritocratic structure that rewards competence and actual results.

The bourgeoisie do not "run things", they have zero control over the state and they do not own the majority of the economy. 44% of the population are union members, 7% of the population are communist party members, there isn't a household in the country that doesn't have a direct relative who takes part in the party, and 95% of the population is satisfied with their government (a stark contrast to any capitalist country).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That 95% number sounds a lot more like "disagree and your life will become more difficult" than genuine satisfaction with the government. Also, dude, the union membership rate is kinda pointless when literally all unions save one are considered illegal. These things are irrelevant to the question of whether China is primarily communist/socialist or capitalist, but they're too ridiculous not to comment on.

Anyway, you keep going back and forth on whether the bourgeoisie actually own and run the business, so I'm not sure what you meant when you first claimed that they did, if you're now claiming they don't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That 95% number sounds a lot more like "disagree and your life will become more difficult" than genuine satisfaction with the government.

Ahaaaa but you see I did a bit of a cheeky gotcha here (sorry). Everyone always comments on this figure because it's sensationally high.

That number comes from the longest independent study carried out of its kind (30 years long). Carried out by Harvard who I'm quite sure you will agree is not going to be biased in favour of China, quite the opposite in fact. They also very specifically state that the findings are not due to propaganda but that Chinese people's opinions change based on actual material improvements in their lives.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

Quote on 95% figure that I've used:

The survey team found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing. In contrast to these findings, Gallup reported in January of this year that their latest polling on U.S. citizen satisfaction with the American federal government revealed only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government.

The actual study is here: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf

Quote on it not being because of propaganda:

We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.

While the CCP is seemingly under no imminent threat of popular upheaval, it cannot take the support of its people for granted. Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being

Responding to the rest of your response now:

Anyway, you keep going back and forth on whether the bourgeoisie actually own and run the business, so I'm not sure what you meant when you first claimed that they did, if you're now claiming they don't.

I am not sure what made you think that I said they did? I did not. Can you quote the part that caused this confusion? Maybe I misworded something?

Also, dude, the union membership rate is kinda pointless when literally all unions save one are considered illegal.

Why? You should not be measuring the effectiveness of unions by how many independently exist but instead by the effectiveness of their organising and frequency of their action. China had 1500 major strikes last year that were negotiated. You should focus less on an aesthetic and more on outcomes, what you care about is improving people's lives yes? That is your preferred goal? We are on the same page in that I hope as it is the goal and desire of everyone on this site as well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not loose at all. The means of production are currently controlled by the bourgeoisie through private ownership and the bourgeois state. If instead those are transferred to state ownership controlled by the proletariat it is then under their control. The CPC structure itself plays a major role here.

Now I realize the second sentence is referencing a general capitalist society and the the third a communist. I thought the second was referencing China.

I'm going to have to tap out, because I have an acquired disability which makes long, dense reading very difficult, but I've pulled up a few academic papers on the Chinese economy and I'll be slowly reading them a few paragraphs at a time. Cheers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry if I wrote too much! I would have chunked things up a bit more if I had known.

I do hope this has been interesting. That Harvard study is particularly useful in breaking down the (racist/orientalist) idea that the Chinese people are all somehow under a magic spell that controls them all through either omnipotent threat of harm or propaganda. A silly premise for a society.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Nah don't worry, it's much easier to pretend I'm normal, since I can fake it pretty well. I just don't want to disappoint you with a sub-par conversation partner, and I'm struggling to parse, anyway. Thanks for the starting points, I'll dig deeper at my own pace.