Calling China communist is a stretch. More like planned authoritarian capitalism tempered with socialism. China has 607 billionaires, communism would have 0.
Also, Japan is very capitalistic and they have amazing trains.
look I don't care who's communist and who's capitalist, we need them trains
It's not a stretch, it's outright false to call it communism or socialism, systems which necessitate the abolishment of capitalist mode of production (commodity production, private ownership, markets) and money. China, meanwhile, literally has billionaires, still produces things under capitalist mode of production and the only oddity it has compared to other Capitalist countries is partially nationalized economy (which Mussolini has also done, it's not socialism by itself).
It's just a social democracy.
democracy is a far stretch though, isnt it? And capitalist is also not entirely true, when entire industry branches are nationalized, planned and not privatized
Isn’t there only one political party in China? How is that democracy? Not being hostile, genuinely curious how that would work
You can have disagreements within a single party. Like how in the US they banned communist parties because it didn't align with the capitalist ideals that all American parties are required to align with.
The US has not banned communist parties from existing. There's even a few local elected communist mayors. The Red Scare for sure did it's job though, and declaring as a communist in virtually any US office is a surefire way to lose.
Which was ruled unconstitutional in 1973 by the federal district court of Arizona. Did you finish the article that you linked?
I think people have some degree of chouce at the more local levels, but you're right.
Wikipedia lists 9 parties in the NPC
Cool, thanks, TIL
You should also learn that those parties are subsidiaries of CCP, the governing party. They are not actual alternatives.
And all of those parties are listed as being under the control of CCP. So it is a one party state.
Socialism does not necessitate the abolishment of commodity production in totality to be considered Socialist, just that the society we are analyzing is working towards abolishing it in the future, which is further cemented by running an economy where the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are in the public sector and thus have leverage over the rest of the economy.
This is because no system is static. Whoever controls the Means of Production controls their development, and in which direction. As production improves, centralization increases, and state management becomes more feasible and more fundamentally necessary. This propels further socialization of the economy, as long as there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the development of the productive forces drives the development to higher and more developed stages of Socialism, eventually giving way to the establishment of Communism.
Further, to compare China to fascist Mussolini is just absurd. Mussolini had minor nationalizations, in order to support the Capitalist state. In China, it's fundamentally the opposite. Engels went over the difference in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
But the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes over into its possession, the more it becomes a real aggregate capitalist, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-workers, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished, rather it is pushed to the limit. But at this limit it changes into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the handle to the solution.
Engels is specifically speaking about economies where the state is thoroughly bourgeois, and thus the character of the state ownership is to support Capitalism. This is not the case for China, however, which has gradually been seeing large gains for the working class and the Capitalists within China thoroughly submissive to the proletarian state. China has already had its revolution, it did not abandon it, neither did Cuba, Vietnam, etc. This is supported by what Engels says later:
The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Production is gradually transformed into public property as it develops and is more capable of being publicly owned and planned.
But you've already been explained this before, repeatedly. Your stance is that there can be no such thing as Socialism until commodity production, markets, and money all cease to exist, when in all likelihood vestigial elements of each may continue to exist even in the earliest stages of Communism, if we agree with Marx. Your stance is the "One Drop Rule," which eliminates the entirety of Dialectics and treats Socialism as a unique mode of production defined by purity, while Capitalism, Feudalism, and so forth were all defined by which element was the principle aspect, as no system has ever truly been "pure." This is plainly a wrong stance to take.
Lets call it state capitalist, as thats the proper term
It's not even that, given how there's a decent chunk of their economy owned by private individuals
As I understand it, the majority shareholder is the cccp in those little capitalist bubbles?
"CCCP" is the "USSR," so no. I think you mean "CCP," which stands for "Chinese Communist Party," although the preferred term is "CPC," or "Communist Party of China," as is the international standard designation for Communist Parties.
Either way, the CPC does have control over the economy, including the private sector, through mechanisms like "the golden share." Even further, key industries like steel, energy, etc are publicly owned and controlled, hence the companies that do exist in the private sector must still rely on the public sector and play by the rules or else they can't actually do business.
?
carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone
Ah, fair enough, there is that too.
I answered over here, China is a Socialist economy trying to build up to Communism. Billionaires wouldn't really exist in Communism, but China hasn't managed to abolish the commodity form in general yet, it takes time and most importantly development of the productive forces.
The term state capitalism cover a lot of the basics of the Chinese system.
Thank you. Was looking for a better term.
@[email protected] how does it work in China, again?
China is as communist as I am a french male model. That said, it is indeed a mistake to allow the "free market" to determine the nation's critical infrastructure. American rail is an absolute joke.
I… I already told you.
muricans calling everything communism that isn't gop cock sucking is getting old
Whos trains are those ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the world may never know
Are they belong to a stateless moneyless society? It would be very embarrassing for you if they aren't.
yeah we almost got a high speed rail system but some dipshit from south africa decided to build a shitty tunnel instead
Close. Put the capitalist train on its side, spilling hazardous waste into a community water source.
Communism is when trains run on time
’Communism is when communal efforts produce results.’
Accidentally correct, you dolt.
Capitalism (good) Vs Capitalism (bad)
FTFY
Capitalism with literal slave labor vs capitalism that outsources the literal slave labor or calls them prisoners with jobs
and I wouldn't want to live in neither the US nor China
Capitalism (with speedy trains) vs capitalism (with slow trains)
FTFY
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
