-27
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
-27 points (34.1% liked)
Memes
45987 readers
1540 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Guards want to kill Marxists, so they say "China is socialist" and kill the ones who laugh and point out how it isn't
I think the title is indicating the opposite? Guards want to kill 'fake' Marxists, so they kill anyone who point out China isn't socialist? It's convoluted either way.
I think you're right, but I've always seen the meme used as I described so maybe OP didn't understood their own meme? Idk anymore, only doubt is left
Doesn't matter. It's just bait to draw out a response. A memeception.
China is Socialist, the only subsection of Marxists who believe it isn't are Gonzaloists, Trots, and Maoists, generally, all fringe minorities among the broader Marxist current worldwide. The PRC’s economy is dominated by Public Property and Central Planning, the fact that it has a Private Sector does not alone mean it isn’t Socialist, to the contrary it's dependence on the Public Sector as the dominant and driving sector of the economy means it is Socialist.
So you think China can be capitalist and socialist at the same time? Does the state own the means of production, or do private individuals?
Sort of! Marxism sees systems through the lens of Dialectical Materialism, the Dialectical aspect acknowledges that close to no system can be seen as "pure." For example, by the time Capitalism was sprouting from Feudalism, Marx considered many countries that still had feudal modes of production over the majority of their economy to be Capitalist. Not a mixed economy, but Capitalist. The Marxist notion for what a system is, is determined by which Mode of Production is dominant, and which way it is moving towards. To imagine Socialism as a "pure" phase in development is to treat it as "special," unique from the rest of history, which is a Utopian error.
Looking at the PRC, not only is the largest economic sector the Public Sector, but the PRC expresses strong central planning over even the Private and Cooperative sectors. Capital in the Private Sector increases in State control with the degree to which it has developed, which is very much in line with Marx and Engels. From Principles of Communism:
Marx and Engels saw everything as a process. The revolution is still necessary to wrest absolute control from the Bourgeoisie, an act that can be seen as rather short-term, but the process of building towards Communism through Socialism is one done through degree, not decree. You cannot "will" developed markets that have centralized and made themselves ripe for central planning into existence, and Markets are a useful tool for doing so when combined with clear direction.
Again, from Marx, this time Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Does this all make sense with you? Do you agree, or disagree?
China is becoming more capitalist and less socialist over time, that undermines the argument that capitalism is transitional on the way to socialism.
Why do you say China is becoming "more Capitalist and less Socialist?" The PRC is gradually increasing control of the Private Sector as it develops and folds it into the Public Sector. That could have been true in the 90s, but we are almost in 2025 and have seen decades of the opposite of what you describe.
Source for increasing control of the private sector? Is there a study of share of gdp public vs private or something? Because I'm seeing the opposite trend.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china
https://www.statista.com/chart/25194/private-sector-contribution-to-economy-in-china/
You're confusing wealth with percentage of production. The Private Sector is profit driven, which naturally trends towards more wealth production. Regardless, here is data going over the trends in production in the PRC and why it is Socialist, rather than Capitalist.
Inequality is also growing
Trends in China’s income inequality: 1978–2015
Disparity is rising, as are real wages. The Private Sector is seeing larger stratirication of overall wealth, but the purchasing power and real wages of workers is rising at a much higher rate. Eventually this will need to be combatted, yes, but the trends are very positive for the working class, which is the overall goal of Socialism.
What is the overall goal of socialism? To increase our purchasing power and real wages of workers? Because I'm incredulous of that.
The overall goal of Socialism is the liberation and improvement in the lives of the Proletariat. The central belief of Socialists is that at higher stages in development, Public Property is more efficient at that than Private Property, but that at different phases in development each form of property is more or less efficient.
At what stage does China think private property is more efficient? Ever?
Marxism posits modes of production as phases related to technological and industrial development. The more complicated the industry, generally, the longer Private ownership and competition remains useful. However, at a certain point, it's better to fold into the public sector as you have more access to information and better oversight. China often employs both via State Owned Enterprises that compete in Markets under the ownership and direct guidance of the CPC.
If industries continue to becoming more complex, they may never be collectivized?
This is actually a genuinely interesting question for Marxists, more than you likely think. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as a clear-cut line where Public ownership instantly becomes better, down to the exact second. You can centrally plan something from the ground up, though it may not be as stable or grow as rapidly in the beginning. However, there are massive benefits to being entirely centrally planned and publicly owned, such as the abolition of money and the replacement by which with labor vouchers or other such non-transferable tokens, as well as being able to compare the entire productive forces against each other for all industries and adjust accordingly.
The thing is, there is no such thing as "true" Socialism, and if an aspect of Marxism turns out to be wrong, then it must be adjusted and accounted for to be true to Marx himself. There will be different processes in each country and different characteristics, hence why the PRC practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, in anticipation of Socialism with Palestinian Characteristics, or Socialism with Canadian Characteristics.
Do you have a graph of percentage of production over time? Maybe weighted by value?
I doubt you actually read the data I linked in that short of a time period, moreover I don't know why you want to compare Public to Private with respect to Value.
I skimmed it and didn't see a private vs public means of production graph over time. It looked more like just a list of articles that agree with you than data.
If you want to compare just the number of means of production controlled by private vs public, that's fine, but it'd be much more easily skewed by small industries. So weighting by value would help get an overall picture. But just by number is fine.
The way in which the PRC handles Public vs Private property is along the basis of "don't" privatize xyz sectors as a fundamental, such as banks, energy, the steel industry, etc. The growth of the Privtate Sector does not imply a shrinking Public Sector or a shift towards privatization, but that the Private Sector has succeeded in high growth, as is its purpose in these underdeveloped industries.
Further, here's a work on the control of the economy and its trends over time (paywalled, unfortunately). Here's a non-paywalled scholarly article on the growth of State control over the Private Sector.
Thanks for the article, looks like it's arguing SOEs are growing, which makes sense. They usually grow. Looks like it's difficult to determine if SOEs are growing at the same rate as non SOEs though.
Depending on how you count things, SOEs are either failing behind or catching up.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12395
But it looks like there are fewer and fewer SOEs over time.
https://www.nber.org/digest/jun15/chinas-state-sector-transformed-not-so-privatized
I think you need to read the article more:
The CPC's strategy since Deng has been to invite investors to help industrialize at a rapid pace, while maintaining state supremacy and guidance.
All the metrics I've found have indicated China is moving towards capitalism/private ownership and away from socialism/public ownership. If you can find data/a graph that shows otherwise, we can continue the conversation.
I'm telling you that seeing the overall system as a balancing act between Capitalism and Socialism is wrong. Socialism and Capitalism are terms for the broader system, not individual elements within it. Conflating public ownership with Socialism itself and Private Ownership with Capitalism itself is an anti-Marxist view of Capitalism and Socialism as systems. I already linked 2 scholarly articles showcasing the trends towards constraining the Private Sector and expanding government control over it.
If you are going to hinge continuing this conversation on whether I play by your mistaken conceptions of Socialism, then I fear this isn't going to be productive anyways, regardless of what I provide.
Private individuals own it, but the state can change the specific private individual at will.
That's no different than any country. Anywhere can charge someone and strip their assets.
This doesn't even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.
Private "ownership" is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.
The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.
I'm always confused at this, to me, Socialism is something that can only exist within Capitalism. Socialism without Capitalism is just Communism, as far as I understand it.