China is a Socialist country run by a Communist party, which is why the overwhelming majority of major Communist orgs recognize it as such. The economy is dominated by the public sector, which controls the large majority of key industries and large firms. They aren’t fully developed post-scarcity Communist yet, but they are developing through Socialism.
Further, Chinese infrastructure is good. The rails are safe and the trains aren’t held together with duct tape, and they aren’t made with slave labor. This is just chauvanism.
They are not socialist in the slightest. That requires the workers to own the means of production, which they do not.
Edit: To expand on this companies are organized the same way as in capitalism because they are capitalist. Workers at the bottom, management in the middle, and rich capitalists at the top.
The overwhelming majority of the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and planned, so yes, the workers do own the means of production for the majority of the economy. Further, managers are workers too, not owners. I think you have a very specific view of Socialism that’s exclusionary towards Marxism, for Marxists cooperatives aren’t truly “Socialist” as they are petite bourgeois cells that retain private property and exclusive ownership within, when the goal of Marxist Communisn is the eventual abolition of Private Property, which can only be accomplished by folding all property into the hands of all, through public ownership.
The workers have no meaningful power or ownership over their workplaces, so it doesn’t matter how much is publicly owned. I personally will never accept the marxist redefinition of socialism, nor will I ever accept an authoritarian vanguard state.
I do not want to continue this debate, tankie. It’s never productive for anyone.
You don’t have to respond, but if you’re going to disengage after making a bunch of claims and insulting me, I think it’s only fair that I respond for others that read this thread.
Workers in China do have meaningful power over their workplaces, and the majority of the economy is publicly owned. There are worker councils in workplaces, the agricultural sector is largely cooperative based, and even many firms like Huawei are cooperatives.
Secondly, Marxists did not “redefine Socialism.” Marxism is a part of the broader Socialist tradition, trying to redefine Socialism so as to exclude Marxism is odd, considering it has had by far the largest impact on Socialism historically and in modern times.
Finally, all states are authoritarian, in that all are used by one class to oppress others. It is best that the class in power is the Proletariat and it uses that state power to oppress the bourgeoisie, as is happening in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Again, you don’t have to respond, but if you’re going to disengage after insulting me and making a number of claims, I’m allowed to address them as well. Have a good one.
China is a Socialist country run by a Communist party, which is why the overwhelming majority of major Communist orgs recognize it as such. The economy is dominated by the public sector, which controls the large majority of key industries and large firms. They aren’t fully developed post-scarcity Communist yet, but they are developing through Socialism.
Further, Chinese infrastructure is good. The rails are safe and the trains aren’t held together with duct tape, and they aren’t made with slave labor. This is just chauvanism.
They are not socialist in the slightest. That requires the workers to own the means of production, which they do not.
Edit: To expand on this companies are organized the same way as in capitalism because they are capitalist. Workers at the bottom, management in the middle, and rich capitalists at the top.
The overwhelming majority of the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and planned, so yes, the workers do own the means of production for the majority of the economy. Further, managers are workers too, not owners. I think you have a very specific view of Socialism that’s exclusionary towards Marxism, for Marxists cooperatives aren’t truly “Socialist” as they are petite bourgeois cells that retain private property and exclusive ownership within, when the goal of Marxist Communisn is the eventual abolition of Private Property, which can only be accomplished by folding all property into the hands of all, through public ownership.
The workers have no meaningful power or ownership over their workplaces, so it doesn’t matter how much is publicly owned. I personally will never accept the marxist redefinition of socialism, nor will I ever accept an authoritarian vanguard state.
I do not want to continue this debate, tankie. It’s never productive for anyone.
You don’t have to respond, but if you’re going to disengage after making a bunch of claims and insulting me, I think it’s only fair that I respond for others that read this thread.
Workers in China do have meaningful power over their workplaces, and the majority of the economy is publicly owned. There are worker councils in workplaces, the agricultural sector is largely cooperative based, and even many firms like Huawei are cooperatives.
Secondly, Marxists did not “redefine Socialism.” Marxism is a part of the broader Socialist tradition, trying to redefine Socialism so as to exclude Marxism is odd, considering it has had by far the largest impact on Socialism historically and in modern times.
Finally, all states are authoritarian, in that all are used by one class to oppress others. It is best that the class in power is the Proletariat and it uses that state power to oppress the bourgeoisie, as is happening in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Again, you don’t have to respond, but if you’re going to disengage after insulting me and making a number of claims, I’m allowed to address them as well. Have a good one.