deleted by creator
Calling them socialist brings out a lot of haters with their gotchas but within the framework of global economy and its Western hegemony and looking at how poor the country of China was not even fifty years ago, I think they are doing very well especially considering that they are at the forefront of poverty amelioration, which might not seem much to someone who has not eyewitnessed the widespread poverty of the third world, but is especially impressive in comparison to the experiments of globalization around the world which have been utter failures. (Damn that is a long sentence.) I wouldn’t call them socialist yet but definitely MLs.
I can’t say whether they will reach socialism by 2050 because my understanding of history is poor but I doubt they will be allowed to run their course uninterrupted without Western interference so we will see how that goes.
I think they are doing very well
Are they though? It’s absolute massive country with pretty much unlimited resources yet they are lagging behind other Asian countries on pretty much any index, especially human quality of life indexes.
If Mao’s revolution hadn’t happened and China was a divided into smaller states today it would be a much more prosperous and happy set of countries. Just take a look at Taiwan and their stuck on pretty much resource-less tiny island.
deleted by creator
The Mao era lead to huge leaps in life expectancy. It was the second fastest industrialization in human history and the landlord and bourgeois exploiters where fought off for most of the period.
Again, you imply that that wouldn’t had happened otherwise when the rest of Asia is didn’t do the whole communism dance and ended up stronger economically and happier culturally and individually.
deleted by creator
Your ideological fancies about how capitalist rule (which before the rise of revisionism could only have existed under the rule of the nazi-backed KMT) would have gone are completely divorced from any real concrete political understanding of the history.
No, I implied that political form seems to be more or less irrelevant for final economic outcome. The only difference is that Mao killed millions of people and other countries got around without unnecessary deaths and torture.
It’s not a coincidence that the two fastest industrializations and drops in poverty of the 20th century occurred in the USSR and China during the Stalin and Mao periods.
Why is it not a coincidence? Many countries industrialized just as fast under different political programs. Take India, Bangladesh or any other underdeveloped country starting to develop — it all happens fast because they can inherit technology from more developed nations. Even today we see it happen in Africa countries going from no electricity to super cities in two decades.
China didn’t revolutionize the world they just bootstrapped whatever was available to their own ecosystem. They could have done that under any other political system and you could even argue more successfully.
All I’m saying that political flavor of the month isn’t as important as average plebs think.
deleted by creator
India and Bangladesh are both economically backward semi-feudal countries. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
He says that unironically and then defends China 🤣
You might also consider asking this question on https://communism.lemmy.ml/
deleted by creator
No, federation is still under development.
I will reserve judgment on this matter until I see how China unwinds its urban housing bubbles.
China has fallen hook-line-and-sinker for the American trick of watching GDP metrics to justify breaking community goods/services/resilience. If they can de-couple from the American Way, then being an authoritarian nation allows for sharper and quicker pivots than what the U.S. can do. We are trapped by our housing stock, bad sub-urban designs, how much people rely on the paper wealth of these houses, and the terrified NIMBY politics this engenders.
To the world I say, don’t be like us. Figure out housing. And figure out how to not trap your human capital in housing arrangements that steal all of their money in the name of GDP.
I don’t see any indicators that their governance of China has produced socialism. Developed the economy, doubtless, reduced poverty, doubtless, but neither of these are definitional of socialism and the Deng period saw many political reversals that had nothing to do with a historically limited use of state capitalism.
It’s been a few years now since I read it but in Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era at least one of the contributors talks about the retrenchment of traditional patriarchal norms in the Deng era, for example, which is unjustifiable.
Will they reach socialism by 2050? Not without a revolution!
I think that their economic growth and fight with poverty is impressive, but it comes at many costs that I am not sure a proper democratic country (more than one party etc pp) would have taken.
Other than the elimination of poverty I don’t think that the CCP is socialist at all, but I don’t know much about them I only ever hear about china.
To me socialism embodies not only solidarity, freedom from capitalistic oppression etc but also many freedoms and I don’t think that china does very well on that front - not even being a democracy.
In my mind a state that’s not a democracy can’t be called socialist and honestly it will never be socialist because socialism can’t be dictated by a benevolent dictator it has to be understood and fought for by its citizens.
It’s worth noting that having a single party is not at odds with having a democracy. Basically all this means is that communism is accepted as the right approach, and there is room for debate over what the best way to implement communism is.
I don’t actually see any fundamental problem with that myself. As long as the party represents the will of the people, and there is meaningful participation from the public then it’s a democratic system.
On the other hand, it can be debated whether CCP represents the principles of communism well. Allowing private industry and inequality are both policies that are clearly at odds with the ideals of communism. I also disagree with the decision to allow business people into the party. That goes directly against the premise of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
deleted by creator
I think we pretty much all agreed that China is a totalitarian oligarchy like 20 years ago, hadn’t we? They just pick whatever policies they like to suit their totalitarian regime, there’s no cohesive system unless of course you consider slaving for the oligarchs a cohesive system.
Your assertion that we all agreed on something about China just isn’t the case! As someone involved in communist circles, it seems nobody can agree what China is. There are tons of people on each side of this argument.
Yeah china is one of the hottest topics in communist/socialist spaces
deleted by creator
Yeah I meant on the internet but I probably worded it poorly
I consider it to be a shit-stain on humanity.
Cool but, the question wasn’t whether you consider it bad…
