ProleWiki

842 readers

1 users here now

ProleWiki

A community related to the ProleWiki project.

Post in this community to request articles, provide suggestions and discuss ways to develop our project

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Discussion about socialist market economy. Does socialism have commodity production? Is China a capitalist country because it has commodity production? (en.prolewiki.org)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I think a case could have been made in the past, but I think it is pretty clear it is not capitalist based on the fact that:

they execute corrupt businessmen and such, open hostility and control of major corporative class members.
State-owned Enterprises(SOEs) are a huge part of the economy. These enterprises exist as an arm of the state and function within the global capitalist ideological context. I firmly believe that if SOEs existed without a corporative or business structure, and strictly as a nationalized corporation, they would be subject to major sanctions by the imperial core.
their major achievements in social equity, and eradicating extreme poverty.
The open eradication of huge sectors like the private tutoring business which was pretty much abolished overnight because it was considered exploitative of parents and children.

Conclusion: China has had to adopt capitalist structures in order to survive within a world that would have ruthlessly crushed it otherwise. To that extent, China has consistently used such structures in a practical purpose and has not shown signs of wavering in any sense away from socialism. In fact, China has been enhancing socialist structures of economic control and political practice. Even going so far as to encourage the development of Marxist parties and theory around the world. Therefore it is not capitalist. I would argue that their development is an existential threat to capitalist ideology as a brutal and outdated form of organizing society, governments and economies.

I forgot to add that this is what I have observed and studied as an outsider. Please feel free to correct me or add any details that I have missed. I also forgot to mention that their 95% approval rate of the CPC is consistent with the idea that the party should serve the people and not the bourgeoisie. A fact that is in firm alignment with Marxist and Leninist principles.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

This is nothing more than Dengist Revisionist propaganda, and a total detachment from Marxism.

Saying things such as "they execute corrupt billionaires" is false; as in your haste to defend Capitalist-states like China, who have the largest amont of billionaries than any other country, you have forgotten to compute one simple thing - WHY DOES CHINA HAVE BILLIONAIRES IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Even if this were to be true, they only rarely execute bourgeois for major crimes, extreme nepotism, corruption, and such, not out of any Anti-capitalist ideology. If they were truly Socialist, these billionaires would not exist in the first place.

Furthermore, The PRC has shown an extreme amont of amiability to its bourgeoisie, they have greatly removed labour rights, and given many favours to its bourgeoisie, not anything near hostility.

You fail to understand that SOEs only make up less than 25% of the PRC's total economy, nor are these SOEs Socialist in regards to their economic relations with their workers.

In fact, you have already partially proven my point: "These enterprises exist as an arm of the state and function within the global capitalist ideological context". In other words, these SOEs have been turned into a form of Capitalist-style ownership in order for them to be able to contend with Western corporations.

These SOEs fuction identically to private ownership, they both are owned by a bourgeois class, they both exploit their workers' labour value, and they both care about profits. Therefore, even these SOEs create Capitalist exploitation.

What achievments? Workers cannot even get basic healthcare (at least not outside the major cities), China has one of the worst labour conditions, and its Capitalist-ruling class makes unthinkable profits at the same time.

Lastly on this point, how is poverty reduction Socialism by itself? Poverty reduction could sometimes happen under Capitalism, do we call that Socialism?

The private education sector is still fuctional, from what I can tell. Could you present proof? And furthermore, how is that to itself Socialism?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

How exhausting. And hostile. If you’re so convinced by yourself, then why are you even writing on this website?

If it works and it’s not war communism, it’s revisionism and anti-marx. Got it. The CPC has done more for its people and the earth than you ever will in your life. So, come back when you run a successful revolution, and establish the largest communist and political party on Earth. You are from the imperial core, right? You got your work cut out for you.

You could work on your social and argumentative skills. Here’s my suggestion. Read “ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE” It’s by Mao Tse-tung That should help you figure out what you want to say to convince other comrades of your point of view instead of debasing yourself online.

Edit: stop cherry-picking 🙄 Look up Guo Wengui. He is a billionaire in exile in Manhattan. Jack Ma also was openly hostile to the CPC and then he “disappeared” for three months. Like, no capitalist nation controls their billionaires so publicly. It’s clear that they only exist because the CPC finds their role useful in developing its economy. China is still a very economically modest nation. 10,500.40 USD GDP per capita.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-larger-meaning-of-chinas-crackdown-on-school-tutoring/amp

https://www.who.int/china/health-topics/universal-health-coverage

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0504/c90000-9456411.html

http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0729/c90000-10128877.html

You miss the forest for the trees. It is not any one isolated fact that makes China socialist. It’s all of them, combined. You may have your private opinion about things, but China is run by a communist party, they uphold communist ideology and seek common prosperity for their citizens. China was, before deng, a very poor, and relatively weak nation. I don’t personally agree with every single detail of the Chinese economy or society, but that’s just what happens when things exist outside of our imagination. It doesn’t fit our ideal. They are not communist Albania, they are not DPRK, or Cuba. Deng’s China had to exist in a hostile, capitalist-dominated world. It was adapt or die. The USSR had been dying and reforming into oblivion. However, I see that China is slowly rolling back capitalist reforms and influence, and seeks prosperity for their people in a democratic and revolutionary way. It’s clear capitalism is a tool of the people and not their cudgel, albeit there is a lot of work remaining to completely remove it.

I’ve read your other comments and you are spouting the same propagandistic nonsense that RFA, RFE, and NED do. All of which are funded by CIA. You’re really going to side with Imperialist intelligence before Socialist China? I think you have plenty of unlearning you have to do. But unfortunately, I trust you will not listen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Well you see, if China doesn't follow exactly what Hoxha said, it can't be Marxist. Hoxha was the only true Marxist and Albania was the only true socialist state. Marxism is unchanging and rigid and no one can ever do anything different based on their country's material conditions and circumstances. If a country ever makes mistakes, does anything I personal disagree with, it is an evil revisionist capitalist hellscape.

The US and the west are evil, but I utilize their information channels for all of my opinions of other countries, or I base all my opinions on purist infighting from the 1970s and won't ever accept that there may be alternate paths to the same goal. You are stupid and wrong for having a different opinion than me, revisionist pig.

But in all seriousness, I appreciated your updated response, saved me from having to write a book at work.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

What you said is a complete mischaracterisation of Enver Hoxha and Hoxhaism.

The People's Republic of China has taken an openly Anti-Marxist path, selling out its people to Western Megacorporations, and adopting bourgeois-nationalism as part of its ideology.

Enver Hoxha never claimed to be the only "true" Marxist, nor do Hoxhaists claim that the People's Socialist Republic of Albania was the only true Socialist State.

Saying that:

Marxism is unchanging and rigid and no one can ever do anything different based on their country’s material conditions and circumstances. If a country ever makes mistakes, does anything I personal disagree with, it is an evil revisionist capitalist hellscape.*

Is false, considering that Hoxhaists fundimetally oppose the imperialism of NATO and uphold national self-determination.

And lastly claiming that:

The US and the west are evil, but I utilize their information channels for all of my opinions of other countries, or I base all my opinions on purist infighting from the 1970s and won’t ever accept that there may be alternate paths to the same goal. You are stupid and wrong for having a different opinion than me, revisionist pig.

Is utterly false. Everything I said is based on empirical information, not what the State Department said. You can use information, not based off Western-sources, to prove the large existance of billionaires in the PRC government and the Communist Party of China. You can prove that the SOEs only make up less than 25% of the economy, and so on. I am simply adhering to Revolutionary defeatism.