You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points

Capitalism is not defined by how the poor are treated, but by the economic relationships and mode of ownership.

Nordic countries have low poverty and generally good social support. Like it or not, this is achieved with private property on means of production, hence they are capitalist.

China has private property on means of production, hence it too is capitalist.

Both of them feature strong state oversight, which allows them to direct more of the capitalist profits to help the poor - which is good! But this doesn’t make them “socialist”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Capitalism is defined by which class holds power in society, and in China it’s demonstrably the working class. The reason the economy works in the interest of the poor is a direct result of that.

All the core economy in China is state owned, and the role of private sector continues to decline https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among

You might want to learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

What your data shows is that the share of state in the economy has partially recovered in 2020’s from ~30 to ~50%, after falling from 80% to 30% in the previous decade. Impressive, indeed, and way ahead of most capitalist countries - but China is home to numerous giant private megacorporations, and allows many companies from abroad to build in the country.

“Who holds power” is very abstract and is not part of definition of socialism or capitalism. Even still, we just talked about homelessness - if workers held all the power, would there be homeless? Would there be any poor at all? Would there be overheated markets, including housing, which is one of the craziest in the world? Would there be Tencent, Alibaba, etc.? Would there be billionaires? Etc. etc. What defines “workers holding power” for you?

What is it about some leftists desperately trying to put socialist label on capitalist China - a desperate attempt to demonstrate a mighty socialist economy in the modern world? Socialist countries have lost the Cold War and are mostly not on the map anymore; there are objective reasons to that, including the fact most of the world never moved away from socialism and capitalist forces had greater capital to work with, and this does not mean socialism is bad, but currently, socialism is not represented by any large economy. That’s just the fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You have an infantile understanding of what capitalism is. I recommend reading this article to get a bit of a perspective https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

“Who holds power” is very abstract and is not part of definition of socialism or capitalism.

Power isn’t abstract, and who holds it is definitional to socialism and capitalism, and to feudalism before them.

if workers held all the power, would there be homeless?

Not for the most part, no. In your imagined “capitalist” China, did you just assume that they have a homelessness crisis, without even checking? Because you’re unintentionally making our case for us.

Would there be any poor at all?

You can’t go from one of the poorest, least developed countries in the world to universal wealth overnight. But they have made unprecedented progress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

China is not capitalist, its a mixed economy with the state-owned-and-planned sector dominating the heights of the economy.

Is China state capitalist?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
  • A China misinformation Megathread.

🚫 Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters.

Thoughtcrime. https://web.archive.org/web/20200727154945/https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c2b7ma/china_megathread_everything_a_leftist_must_know/

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Thx, I’ll update that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Love how you respond to a bunch of information from the World Bank, NYT, and the National Bureau of Economic Research with a definition from Wikipedia.

Consider that you could learn more here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Do any of the sources define socialism?

All of this could be true - none of this makes China socialist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You said:

China is capitalist… It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one.

The response was a well-souced refutation of the idea that the Chinese economy is developing like a capitalist economy. You replied with Wikipedia. All I’m saying is that you’re not looking at this in a whole lot of detail and you might have some things to learn.

For instance, you say Nordic countries have low rates of poverty and good social supports despite private ownership of the means of production. But in reality a lot of that is due to sovereign wealth funds, like Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, which is owned by the government and managed by a state-owned bank.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 277K

    Comments