this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
439 points (90.6% liked)
Memes
49871 readers
2638 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
China is following the playbook of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and similar countries. The all used window guidance to quickly grow targeted industries, which actually worked very well. All of them are wealthy countries today. However that dependence on how good the window guidance is. They take on a lot of debt to invest and it only works as long as the investment is actually smart. If not the debt increases and that causes massive problems down the line. So it creates a bubble and when it pops it hurts badly. After decades of growth those bubbles probably are nasty.
What no theory does to a mf
What theory?
Political Economy, ie Marxism.
China isn't Marxist so I'm confused wtf that has to do with anything.
The PRC is Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists, large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector, while the private sector is largely cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is classically Marxist. I elaborate more on this here.
I didn't realize banks, financial trade, and currency were also classically Marxist.
What do the PRC do that is socialist? I'm honestly asking because I haven't seen them do anything socialist.
Click the link, I already answered. Large firms and key industries are in the public sector, public ownership is the principle aspect of China's economy. It is employing a Marxist strategy of building towards full socialization and abolition of the value form.
Specifically though, which part is relevant here?
Marxist economics. The reason it's applicable is because China's strategy isn't at all in the same suit as Japan, the ROK, Taiwan, etc. China's Socialist economy is built on public ownership of large firms and key industries, not just "window guidance," and China isn't racking up debt to do it.
China has a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.
It sounds like you've been soaking up Chinese propaganda!
You're like those Christian Americans who truly believe that Trump is promoting "Christian values" despite being as far as you can get from Christian values.
All it takes for socialism is to just wave the flag and talk the talk, but not walk the walk, eh?
I explained in the other comment, public owership is the principle aspect of the PRCs economy. It isn't so much "Chinese propaganda" as it is simple observation of their economic makeup.
Chinese public to Chinese billionaire: "Can I have some of our public profits?"
Chinese billionaire: "No."
Again, saying they're "public" and actually being publicly owned are two different things. The PRC is just lying. They can be in this "building towards socialism" phase indefinitely while they profit off the labour of the working class.
And a simple observation of their economic makeup will see things that you typically see in capitalist economies, like banks, and stock markets, and billionaires, things that are pretty explicitly the antithesis of Marxism.
Billionaires are lowering in quantity in the PRC year over year, while working class wages and purchasing power are rising year over year. Massive projects like the Poverty Elimination Campaign are successfully being implemented to directly address the needs of the people.
Further, you have no proof of the PRC lying about pubkic ownership. There aren't hidden shadow Capitalists pulling strings, lmao, this is a conspiracy theory.
Even further, they cannot indefinitely build towards Socialism. Socialism arises naturally as long as the state continues to resolve contradictions in favor of the proletariat, as firms grow and get folded into the public sector and socialization increases. Systems are never static, which is why the proportion of the public sector is rising in China.
The presence of structures potentially contradictory to higher stages of Socialism, like banks, stock markets, and billionaires, does not mean they are not progressing towards those higher stages.
Given our prior interactions, I already know you aren't a Marxist, why should anyone trust your evaluation of Marxism?
Billionaires, but not their billions?
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china
Why is income inequality rising? Are you saying the Chinese working class are enjoying the trickle-down benefits of billionaires getting richer?
Again, billionaires, and their existence, is proof that the profits are not publicly owned.
No they can just lie and say "we're in a transitionary phase to socialism" indefinitely while being more repressively capitalist than America could ever dream of.
Again from the same link posted above, the opposite is happening, China is privatizing.
"The state-owned (vs. privately-owned) share of China’s wealth fell from 70% to about 30%"
So what does then? If income inequality is rising, billionaires are getting richer, public ownership is disappearing, privatization is increasing, then what are you basing this idea that they are "progressing towards those higher stages" on?
I'm a socialist. I'm trying to get you to think about your definitions by challenging what you believe with the facts. Like this idea that China is "working towards socialism".
Do you also believe Trump is "working towards Christian values"?
Nice of you to cut off your data a decade ago, now that trends are reversing. Very intellectually honest of you! And you continue to use confused requirements for Socialism, like public ownership of profit rather than the Means of Production. All of your analysis boils down to share of wealth, rather than the direction of the economy and analysis of class dynamics. You also cherry pick your data, using old data. Using modern data, we can see public ownership is increasing, and private is decreasing. Same with the ultra wealthy, they are decreasing, while working class income is rising.
The thing is, the reverse is true on all of those. You are cherry picking old, outdated data, and are using vague definitions that contradict Marx. You don't have facts, so you lie. This is why you call a largely publicly driven economy "Capitalist," you have nothing but vibes.