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.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world -4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world -2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Billionaires, but not their billions?

https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china

The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France's 32%.

Why is income inequality rising? Are you saying the Chinese working class are enjoying the trickle-down benefits of billionaires getting richer?

Further, you have no proof of the PRC lying about pubkic ownership.

Again, billionaires, and their existence, is proof that the profits are not publicly owned.

Even further, they cannot indefinitely build towards Socialism.

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.

as firms grow and get folded into the public sector and socialization increases

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%"

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.

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?

Given our prior interactions, I already know you aren't a Marxist, why should anyone trust your evaluation of Marxism?

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"?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

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.

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?

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.