The same poverty rate diminishment (what the fuck is the word for it in english) was there for a lot of southeast asian countries and korea too, it's not a uniquely chinese thing.
Also they're extorting African countries for their natural resources just as western imperialist countries are.
Also making use of capitalism just confirms (wrongly) that it's capitalism that can lift people out of property and not communism.
Just a few concerns, seeing anyone saying they are 100% communist and admitting they're not just betting on them is making me extremely uncomfortable (even thouh the video is cool)
Also they’re extorting African countries for their natural resources just as western imperialist countries are.
This requires a source, because I’m aware of them having activity in Africa, but what I’ve read about is of a much less exploitative nature than what the western powers are doing.
Remember that China was doing most of what it was doing with no support and at the same time as resisting western powers while states like South Korea were fully benefiting (on an industrial level anyway) from being a US puppet state.
But they still did it mostly with the help of capital, so it's not 100% true that they were doing it on their own. Also addressing the last point, if as dialectics states that you can't achieve socialism without implementing capitalism (which is btw plain wrong imo) China is still a capitalist state despite they calling themselves socialism with chinese characteristics or whatever name they give it, because as of now, they have basically the same economic system as Hungary who are as far from socialism as you can imagine (or they're playing some 600D chess). So yeah, if the main tenet is that they are trying to implement socialism in 2050 BUT until then they will look and act like (mostly) a capitalist state, then don't call it that (this goes for CCP fans too btw), call it a capitalist state that's working towards socialism. I mean, i'll still be sceptical (as all of us should be), but it's a much more acceptable explanation.
This requires a source, because I’m aware of them having activity in Africa, but what I’ve read about is of a much less exploitative nature than what the western powers are doing.
I'm going to look for some sources but "much less exploitative", aka handing out loans, with lower interest rates (that's a fact) than the IMF, but still ripping them off for their natural resources and however much i saw that they are actually building infrastructure where they are active, i'm yet to see any proof of them not just building straight roads from coltan mines to the nearest port.
And again, i'm not dismissing China as a non-socialist project at all, i'm just voicing scepticism. There are very good projects started there (if they could start pushing for CNG cars more for example that would help a lot for them to not be reliant that much on heavy metals, and they just announced that there will be a push like that), and i want to understand them more - more than "all the critics are from the CIA".
I’m not saying markets = development of the productive forces towards the end of achieving communism, but that is clearly China’s goal.
Uhmm, i'd beg to differ, but okay.
Do you think socialism is a mode of production? Feudalism is characterized by lord/serf relationships and mercantilism/capitalism by employer/employee. What does a non-capitalist, non-communist, socialist state do coming from a feudal society? What should its relations and mode of production be?
China has for long not been a feudal society, the times of Mao are long gone, but the employee/employer relationships haven't changed much (though as far as i know it's worse for foreign companies), 996 work schedule is still a thing (or is it western propaganda too? If it is, what's the truth?), so pardon me for not believing the socialist project narrative uncritically.
China’s mode of production is currently capitalism but they are a communist/socialist country because it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoise
Those other Asian countries are generally as wealthy as they are because of Western countries strategically dumping large amounts of wealth into them during the Cold war, in essentially a form of global wealth redistibution in which the super profits from imperalizing other regions went towards developing these nations to compete with N. Vietnam, DPRK, PRC, etc. The same occured in Europe with the Marshall plan. This is why my conservative history teacher said that the losers of WWII (Germany and Japan) were really the winners, seeing how they managed to eclipse the old powers of the UK and France postwar. China has many obvious surface level similarities to the Asian Tigers, mainly being the use of markets with extensive government oversite, public planning/investment, and a greater degree of public ownership than in Neoliberalism. One important historical difference is that China was not recieving the same massive foreign investment as its neighbors, and had to essentially "trick" the west into doing this by allowing foreign industry in to exploit some workers under controlled conditions. This is obviously a risky strategy, but seems to have worked out quite well, as the relative low cost and high skill of laborers and the amount of existing infrastructure made it a deal that just couldnt be turned down. Few other existing socialist nations have had these factors in enough proportions to seduce Western investment, which is generally discouraged to go towards socialist nations for obvious reasons. All I have described took place during and following Dengs liberalization, starting in 1978. China essentially "hid its power level"(acted lib enough) well enough for the west to buy in and give it a seat at the table (WTO around 2001, etc), and most leaders and pundits in the West believed it would continue its course. Today there are many of the same people announcing that china indeed "tricked us," but actions prove this too, such as the continuing nationalization, extending all the way to things like rental properies, which have been being begun to be expropriated in North China recently. The one thing that makes China's Socialist path most obvious to me though is the style and amount of fearmongering that has been pumped out about it over the past few decades, and this growth of CHINABAD seems to line up directly with the period following the height of liberalization circa 2001, as over the slow period from then to now it has become obvious that liberalization is not what western interests hoped it to be. For other big differences between China and the Asian Tigers, ask these questions: Are there capitlists in government? How many? Are they ever rightfully prosecuted and do they have assets seized/nationalized when they commit crimes? Is Marxism taught in schools? Is it the ideology of the state/ruling party? Is banking public? Is there a large or any amount of cooperatives? Youll find the answers for China differ very much from those of the Asian tigers, in ways that lend much credibility to the idea of it being ×1000 closer to Socialism than any Asian tiger. Truthfully, i believe China is in, though probably quite close to the end of, a state capitalist phase. This makes complete sense considering PRC in 1978 was much more underdeveloped than the semi-industrialized, petite commodity economy of the USSR at the start of the NEP. The USSR came out of the NEP and implented Socialism; Considering much longer and insanely succesful state-cap period, as well as much more stable circumstances than interwar period USSR, i have plenty of faith China is correctly treading the path to Communism.
The same poverty rate diminishment (what the fuck is the word for it in english) was there for a lot of southeast asian countries and korea too, it's not a uniquely chinese thing.
Also they're extorting African countries for their natural resources just as western imperialist countries are.
Also making use of capitalism just confirms (wrongly) that it's capitalism that can lift people out of property and not communism.
Just a few concerns, seeing anyone saying they are 100% communist and admitting they're not just betting on them is making me extremely uncomfortable (even thouh the video is cool)
deleted by creator
Their argument is based on a common misconception seen among imperial core lefties regarding Chinese foreign policy and international trade
This is a video that goes more into depth about the matter.
But they still did it mostly with the help of capital, so it's not 100% true that they were doing it on their own. Also addressing the last point, if as dialectics states that you can't achieve socialism without implementing capitalism (which is btw plain wrong imo) China is still a capitalist state despite they calling themselves socialism with chinese characteristics or whatever name they give it, because as of now, they have basically the same economic system as Hungary who are as far from socialism as you can imagine (or they're playing some 600D chess). So yeah, if the main tenet is that they are trying to implement socialism in 2050 BUT until then they will look and act like (mostly) a capitalist state, then don't call it that (this goes for CCP fans too btw), call it a capitalist state that's working towards socialism. I mean, i'll still be sceptical (as all of us should be), but it's a much more acceptable explanation.
I'm going to look for some sources but "much less exploitative", aka handing out loans, with lower interest rates (that's a fact) than the IMF, but still ripping them off for their natural resources and however much i saw that they are actually building infrastructure where they are active, i'm yet to see any proof of them not just building straight roads from coltan mines to the nearest port.
And again, i'm not dismissing China as a non-socialist project at all, i'm just voicing scepticism. There are very good projects started there (if they could start pushing for CNG cars more for example that would help a lot for them to not be reliant that much on heavy metals, and they just announced that there will be a push like that), and i want to understand them more - more than "all the critics are from the CIA".
deleted by creator
The title of the post says "China isn't doing socialism right", i said they're not doing socialism.
A state can use markets for a lot of things.
deleted by creator
Uhmm, i'd beg to differ, but okay.
China has for long not been a feudal society, the times of Mao are long gone, but the employee/employer relationships haven't changed much (though as far as i know it's worse for foreign companies), 996 work schedule is still a thing (or is it western propaganda too? If it is, what's the truth?), so pardon me for not believing the socialist project narrative uncritically.
China’s mode of production is currently capitalism but they are a communist/socialist country because it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoise
And how does the DotP manifests itself in China?
Those other Asian countries are generally as wealthy as they are because of Western countries strategically dumping large amounts of wealth into them during the Cold war, in essentially a form of global wealth redistibution in which the super profits from imperalizing other regions went towards developing these nations to compete with N. Vietnam, DPRK, PRC, etc. The same occured in Europe with the Marshall plan. This is why my conservative history teacher said that the losers of WWII (Germany and Japan) were really the winners, seeing how they managed to eclipse the old powers of the UK and France postwar. China has many obvious surface level similarities to the Asian Tigers, mainly being the use of markets with extensive government oversite, public planning/investment, and a greater degree of public ownership than in Neoliberalism. One important historical difference is that China was not recieving the same massive foreign investment as its neighbors, and had to essentially "trick" the west into doing this by allowing foreign industry in to exploit some workers under controlled conditions. This is obviously a risky strategy, but seems to have worked out quite well, as the relative low cost and high skill of laborers and the amount of existing infrastructure made it a deal that just couldnt be turned down. Few other existing socialist nations have had these factors in enough proportions to seduce Western investment, which is generally discouraged to go towards socialist nations for obvious reasons. All I have described took place during and following Dengs liberalization, starting in 1978. China essentially "hid its power level"(acted lib enough) well enough for the west to buy in and give it a seat at the table (WTO around 2001, etc), and most leaders and pundits in the West believed it would continue its course. Today there are many of the same people announcing that china indeed "tricked us," but actions prove this too, such as the continuing nationalization, extending all the way to things like rental properies, which have been being begun to be expropriated in North China recently. The one thing that makes China's Socialist path most obvious to me though is the style and amount of fearmongering that has been pumped out about it over the past few decades, and this growth of CHINABAD seems to line up directly with the period following the height of liberalization circa 2001, as over the slow period from then to now it has become obvious that liberalization is not what western interests hoped it to be. For other big differences between China and the Asian Tigers, ask these questions: Are there capitlists in government? How many? Are they ever rightfully prosecuted and do they have assets seized/nationalized when they commit crimes? Is Marxism taught in schools? Is it the ideology of the state/ruling party? Is banking public? Is there a large or any amount of cooperatives? Youll find the answers for China differ very much from those of the Asian tigers, in ways that lend much credibility to the idea of it being ×1000 closer to Socialism than any Asian tiger. Truthfully, i believe China is in, though probably quite close to the end of, a state capitalist phase. This makes complete sense considering PRC in 1978 was much more underdeveloped than the semi-industrialized, petite commodity economy of the USSR at the start of the NEP. The USSR came out of the NEP and implented Socialism; Considering much longer and insanely succesful state-cap period, as well as much more stable circumstances than interwar period USSR, i have plenty of faith China is correctly treading the path to Communism.