Flipping that on its head, it could be said that no system is Capitalist either, as all Capitalist countries have some degree of a Public Sector. Marxism makes explicit acknowledgement of this fact, because it sees Modes of Production as which is dominant in an economy and which way it is moving towards, and in the PRC the economy is based on the Public Sector and strong central planning.
If we call any system that contains elements of the previous Mode of Production and elements of the next Mode of Production “mixed,” every system becomes “mixed.” Relying on purity for Socialism alone signifies Socialism as some unique utopia distinct from all previous Modes of Production, and not a phase in historical development like Marxists assert. Moreover, it leads to interesting conclusions. If we assert that any system with both markets and public ownership is “mixed,” does that mean a country with 99% of the economy in the Private Sector is mixed? What about 51%? Rather than relying on percentages, Marxists rely on dominance and trajectory. In this manner, the PRC is undoubtedly Socialist, even if it has a long way to go to reach Communism.
As a side note, working conditions are frequently exaggerated, they are fairly standard for the global economy and have been rapidly improving.
The silver lining of the continuous decay of Capitalist countries, the increasing reliance on renting commodities instead of selling them to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, is that there is a larger radicalized base of Proletarians in Western countries than there has been in a very long time. I only hope that we can succeed in achieving Socialism.
Standard for a capitalist economy, I suppose I just would expect more from a socialist nation. Also you didn’t adress the fact that they have billionaires.
Standard in the context of a previously extremely poor former colony is a massive improvement that can only be attributed to rapid development and a people-focused government. As for the billionaire question, I believe I did via discussing markets, but I’ll answer more directly since you asked. Yes, the PRC has billionaires, but it’s important to judge the context of Chinese billionaires vs billionaires in Capitalist countries.
In the PRC, billionaires hold little political Capital compared to Capitalist countries, the strength they have as a class is thus limited. The problem with cracking down too hard on billionaires at this stage in Socialist development is the risk of Capital Flight. China’s strategy is to encourage foreign investment and development, while maintaining government supremacy over Capital, in how it moves and grows. If they took a more hardline stance, they would potentially be decoupled from the global economy and end up as the USSR did. A good article is China has Billionaires by Roderic Day.
Moreover, certain entire industries are state owned, like the Steel industry, that the private sector relies on and thus must be bent to the will of the government, not the other way around. The public sector is the base of the economy. The Private Sector is also seeing increased control from the state, because as markets develop they centralize and make themselves ripe for planning, a concept core to Historical Materialism.
Flipping that on its head, it could be said that no system is Capitalist either, as all Capitalist countries have some degree of a Public Sector. Marxism makes explicit acknowledgement of this fact, because it sees Modes of Production as which is dominant in an economy and which way it is moving towards, and in the PRC the economy is based on the Public Sector and strong central planning.
If we call any system that contains elements of the previous Mode of Production and elements of the next Mode of Production “mixed,” every system becomes “mixed.” Relying on purity for Socialism alone signifies Socialism as some unique utopia distinct from all previous Modes of Production, and not a phase in historical development like Marxists assert. Moreover, it leads to interesting conclusions. If we assert that any system with both markets and public ownership is “mixed,” does that mean a country with 99% of the economy in the Private Sector is mixed? What about 51%? Rather than relying on percentages, Marxists rely on dominance and trajectory. In this manner, the PRC is undoubtedly Socialist, even if it has a long way to go to reach Communism.
As a side note, working conditions are frequently exaggerated, they are fairly standard for the global economy and have been rapidly improving.
They’re just working their way towards
fascismadvanced capitalism. See you in 2050 for the next step 🤓The silver lining of the continuous decay of Capitalist countries, the increasing reliance on renting commodities instead of selling them to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, is that there is a larger radicalized base of Proletarians in Western countries than there has been in a very long time. I only hope that we can succeed in achieving Socialism.
Standard for a capitalist economy, I suppose I just would expect more from a socialist nation. Also you didn’t adress the fact that they have billionaires.
Standard in the context of a previously extremely poor former colony is a massive improvement that can only be attributed to rapid development and a people-focused government. As for the billionaire question, I believe I did via discussing markets, but I’ll answer more directly since you asked. Yes, the PRC has billionaires, but it’s important to judge the context of Chinese billionaires vs billionaires in Capitalist countries.
In the PRC, billionaires hold little political Capital compared to Capitalist countries, the strength they have as a class is thus limited. The problem with cracking down too hard on billionaires at this stage in Socialist development is the risk of Capital Flight. China’s strategy is to encourage foreign investment and development, while maintaining government supremacy over Capital, in how it moves and grows. If they took a more hardline stance, they would potentially be decoupled from the global economy and end up as the USSR did. A good article is China has Billionaires by Roderic Day.
Moreover, certain entire industries are state owned, like the Steel industry, that the private sector relies on and thus must be bent to the will of the government, not the other way around. The public sector is the base of the economy. The Private Sector is also seeing increased control from the state, because as markets develop they centralize and make themselves ripe for planning, a concept core to Historical Materialism.
China isn’t perfect, but it is Socialist.