My take on the “is China communist or capitalist” is very simple, China are operating with whatever economic mode of production is most competitive in a world where imperialism exist, while keeping fundamental political control in the hands of the proletariat. If China really was a capitalist country inside and out, you wouldn’t have all these rightist bourgeoisie media outlets like Murdoch throwing shade at China with such fervor.
Totally Anti-Marxist. You should know that the economic mode of production deeply effects the socio-political system of a given country. Have you ever considered that Imperialists have rival Imperialists, like during the First World War? This is the same case.
Is Deng a revisionist in your view? Otherwise I’m not following what angle you are trying to get at.
Correct, Deng Xiaoping was a revisionist and opportunist who completely forgot about class contradiction and imperialism, instead turning his nation into a Capitalist state.
So you came here just to tell us China is capitalist?
In a way, you could say that. However, I think that in helping to develop our revolutionary theory, we must fundimentally look at the People’s Republic of China as an example of what not to do when building Socialism.
deleted by creator
He said" Mao Zedong himself was a careerist and Han-Chinese Ultranationalist, who cared little about the Proletarian revolution, and only about the betterment of China."
No; I am a Hoxhaist.
你差不多得了，邓小平改革的最大原因是农业集体化、工分制度、留粮制度带来的农业生产被抑制、农民不满意。如果没有邓小平的改革中国现在可能不再是共产党执政了
As I understand it, capitalism is used a tool by the Chinese planned economy to increase the power and well-being of the socialist state. It is kept locked in a cage and beaten down when it steps out of line. Deng realized the inherent growth and power of that growth that capitalism inherently espouses, and manipulated it. Truly bringing about a successful (ongoing) transitional phase from one to the other.
I would say it’s more that by providing a controlled space for Capitalism to grow, the Chinese economy has allowed Capitalism to entangle its own success with that of Chinese Socialism. That entanglement was profitable, therefore irresistible for Capital. I know we are saying the same thing, but I’d like to specify that Capitalism doesn’t have inherent growth, it requires room to grow, because it can be quite destructive to protect itself within a confined system.
That’s totally fair and what I was trying to say, I think I just said what I meant poorly lol
Completely false. The economy of the People’s Republic of China is not a planned economy - the vast majority of its economy is under the control of private corporations, and is not subject to government planning. Capitalism is not “locked in a cage” in China, for Capitalism is locking China in a cage, via constant labour abuses, extremely poor working conditions, plutocratic rule, ect. Furthermore, the “Communist” Party of China has no plans to recreate a planned economy, nor Socialism. In short, China is undergoing an NEP (state-capitalism) without end.
Du er en idiot
I believe this is the philosophy of liberalism. They say capitalism can be useful but the state must keep it in check. As long as government can ultimately keep the reins on capitalism and under control, you get the optimum prosperity and social welfare. China experienced great economic growth when it turned to economic liberalism.
The liberal/socialist dichotomy can’t be applied fruitfully to China. It’s a nation with a DOTP, led by the CPC, with an economy that is being constructed in a socialist way, that is China has capitalist dictatorship over large swathes of the means of production, and the CPC and ergo the proletariat are engaging in protracted class warfare with targeted nationalizations after an industry reaches the form of monopoly or a focus on infinite growth. This is why Chinese Marxists call it socialist construction rather than admitting to having achieved a socialist society. SOEs and private capital are battling for supremacy, and the CPC is utilizing those private industries to achieve national growth and national rejuvenation – letting their productive forces reach their limits prior to the stage of engaging in imperial extraction – and then socializing them.
There are sectors of China, namely the capitalists and rightists, that are attempting to steer China in the direction of infinite growth, monopoly, and imperialism. The CPC, and the political dictatorship of the proletariat, are there to struggle fiercely against them and socialize their resources whenever they have reached the highest stage of production they can vis a vi capitalist control. It’s disingenous to suggest that China’s economy is necessarily socialist or capitalist or liberal or whatever, its economy is a battlefield where class war is constantly being waged through nationalizations, asset seizures, executions, state-supported workers’ movements and protests, etc. Dialectics are at play here, with capitalism and socialism struggling for supremacy. Under the leadership of the CPC, socialism is winning, albeit perhaps more slowly than some would like.
This is a great description. Good post.
Thanks comrade. Monthly Review really opened my eyes on China when I was calling myself a Maoist. They consider themselves “new left” (they’re sort of eclectic) but they have great pieces detailing how the CPC supports worker movements as well as why China is considered a semi-periphery country when it comes to questions of capital accumulation and imperialism.
What your describing is more akin to social democracy. Economic liberalism is free markets, little regulations on private activity, free trade, free commerce, little worker rights or bargaining power and very active private influence in the state. That isn’t really at all comparable to china. The most comparable system to modern china is the Soviet NEP (New economic policy), where private industry is used to absorb foreign investment and Garner greater cooperation with the mostly capitalist global economy. This was dumped by the soviets in favor of “socialism in one country”, a more autarkic model that is much less reliant on foreign trade and cooperation. I’m not going to argue which is better, that’s a long discussion for another day. But this is exactly what path china has taken since deng. China connecting it’s economy to global commerce isn’t economic liberalism. SOEs and private companies are used to absorb foreign investment, and that investment is used to rapidly grow the economy. In a capitalist economically liberal china, that investment would be used to make the private barons richer and would be the sole property of those private barons, at the expense of the rest of the population. Instead, in china, that wealth is used to fund state owned industry and projects, as well as public services. Private industry is just bait, that’s all they are, pawns of the state that exist to bait in investment from foreign conglomerates that would never invest in state owned or state operated industry. Private industry in china is held on an incredibly tight leash, much harsher than any country in the globe that allows the private sector to exist. Private industry is only allowed to operate in a limited amount of fields, and is only allowed to operate in SEZs (special economic zones) designated by the government. This has been very successful for china, and if any self described economic liberals learned about how the Chinese economy operated, they would immediately lambast it as evil communism and would not at all come to the conclusion that capitalism or economic liberalism has been beneficial to china.
I think a case could have been made in the past, but I think it is pretty clear it is not capitalist based on the fact that:
- they execute corrupt businessmen and such, open hostility and control of major corporative class members.
- State-owned Enterprises(SOEs) are a huge part of the economy. These enterprises exist as an arm of the state and function within the global capitalist ideological context. I firmly believe that if SOEs existed without a corporative or business structure, and strictly as a nationalized corporation, they would be subject to major sanctions by the imperial core.
- their major achievements in social equity, and eradicating extreme poverty.
- The open eradication of huge sectors like the private tutoring business which was pretty much abolished overnight because it was considered exploitative of parents and children.
Conclusion: China has had to adopt capitalist structures in order to survive within a world that would have ruthlessly crushed it otherwise. To that extent, China has consistently used such structures in a practical purpose and has not shown signs of wavering in any sense away from socialism. In fact, China has been enhancing socialist structures of economic control and political practice. Even going so far as to encourage the development of Marxist parties and theory around the world. Therefore it is not capitalist. I would argue that their development is an existential threat to capitalist ideology as a brutal and outdated form of organizing society, governments and economies.
I forgot to add that this is what I have observed and studied as an outsider. Please feel free to correct me or add any details that I have missed. I also forgot to mention that their 95% approval rate of the CPC is consistent with the idea that the party should serve the people and not the bourgeoisie. A fact that is in firm alignment with Marxist and Leninist principles.
This is nothing more than Dengist Revisionist propaganda, and a total detachment from Marxism.
- Saying things such as “they execute corrupt billionaires” is false; as in your haste to defend Capitalist-states like China, who have the largest amont of billionaries than any other country, you have forgotten to compute one simple thing - WHY DOES CHINA HAVE BILLIONAIRES IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Even if this were to be true, they only rarely execute bourgeois for major crimes, extreme nepotism, corruption, and such, not out of any Anti-capitalist ideology. If they were truly Socialist, these billionaires would not exist in the first place.
Furthermore, The PRC has shown an extreme amont of amiability to its bourgeoisie, they have greatly removed labour rights, and given many favours to its bourgeoisie, not anything near hostility.
- You fail to understand that SOEs only make up less than 25% of the PRC’s total economy, nor are these SOEs Socialist in regards to their economic relations with their workers.
In fact, you have already partially proven my point: “These enterprises exist as an arm of the state and function within the global capitalist ideological context”. In other words, these SOEs have been turned into a form of Capitalist-style ownership in order for them to be able to contend with Western corporations.
These SOEs fuction identically to private ownership, they both are owned by a bourgeois class, they both exploit their workers’ labour value, and they both care about profits. Therefore, even these SOEs create Capitalist exploitation.
- What achievments? Workers cannot even get basic healthcare (at least not outside the major cities), China has one of the worst labour conditions, and its Capitalist-ruling class makes unthinkable profits at the same time.
Lastly on this point, how is poverty reduction Socialism by itself? Poverty reduction could sometimes happen under Capitalism, do we call that Socialism?
- The private education sector is still fuctional, from what I can tell. Could you present proof? And furthermore, how is that to itself Socialism?
How exhausting. And hostile. If you’re so convinced by yourself, then why are you even writing on this website?
If it works and it’s not war communism, it’s revisionism and anti-marx. Got it. The CPC has done more for its people and the earth than you ever will in your life. So, come back when you run a successful revolution, and establish the largest communist and political party on Earth. You are from the imperial core, right? You got your work cut out for you.
You could work on your social and argumentative skills. Here’s my suggestion. Read “ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE” It’s by Mao Tse-tung That should help you figure out what you want to say to convince other comrades of your point of view instead of debasing yourself online.
Edit: stop cherry-picking 🙄 Look up Guo Wengui. He is a billionaire in exile in Manhattan. Jack Ma also was openly hostile to the CPC and then he “disappeared” for three months. Like, no capitalist nation controls their billionaires so publicly. It’s clear that they only exist because the CPC finds their role useful in developing its economy. China is still a very economically modest nation. 10,500.40 USD GDP per capita.
https://www.who.int/china/health-topics/universal-health-coverage
http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0504/c90000-9456411.html
http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0729/c90000-10128877.html
You miss the forest for the trees. It is not any one isolated fact that makes China socialist. It’s all of them, combined. You may have your private opinion about things, but China is run by a communist party, they uphold communist ideology and seek common prosperity for their citizens. China was, before deng, a very poor, and relatively weak nation. I don’t personally agree with every single detail of the Chinese economy or society, but that’s just what happens when things exist outside of our imagination. It doesn’t fit our ideal. They are not communist Albania, they are not DPRK, or Cuba. Deng’s China had to exist in a hostile, capitalist-dominated world. It was adapt or die. The USSR had been dying and reforming into oblivion. However, I see that China is slowly rolling back capitalist reforms and influence, and seeks prosperity for their people in a democratic and revolutionary way. It’s clear capitalism is a tool of the people and not their cudgel, albeit there is a lot of work remaining to completely remove it.
I’ve read your other comments and you are spouting the same propagandistic nonsense that RFA, RFE, and NED do. All of which are funded by CIA. You’re really going to side with Imperialist intelligence before Socialist China? I think you have plenty of unlearning you have to do. But unfortunately, I trust you will not listen.
/s
Well you see, if China doesn’t follow exactly what Hoxha said, it can’t be Marxist. Hoxha was the only true Marxist and Albania was the only true socialist state. Marxism is unchanging and rigid and no one can ever do anything different based on their country’s material conditions and circumstances. If a country ever makes mistakes, does anything I personal disagree with, it is an evil revisionist capitalist hellscape.
The US and the west are evil, but I utilize their information channels for all of my opinions of other countries, or I base all my opinions on purist infighting from the 1970s and won’t ever accept that there may be alternate paths to the same goal. You are stupid and wrong for having a different opinion than me, revisionist pig.
/s
But in all seriousness, I appreciated your updated response, saved me from having to write a book at work.
What you said is a complete mischaracterisation of Enver Hoxha and Hoxhaism.
The People’s Republic of China has taken an openly Anti-Marxist path, selling out its people to Western Megacorporations, and adopting bourgeois-nationalism as part of its ideology.
Enver Hoxha never claimed to be the only “true” Marxist, nor do Hoxhaists claim that the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania was the only true Socialist State.
Saying that:
- Marxism is unchanging and rigid and no one can ever do anything different based on their country’s material conditions and circumstances. If a country ever makes mistakes, does anything I personal disagree with, it is an evil revisionist capitalist hellscape.*
Is false, considering that Hoxhaists fundimetally oppose the imperialism of NATO and uphold national self-determination.
And lastly claiming that:
The US and the west are evil, but I utilize their information channels for all of my opinions of other countries, or I base all my opinions on purist infighting from the 1970s and won’t ever accept that there may be alternate paths to the same goal. You are stupid and wrong for having a different opinion than me, revisionist pig.
Is utterly false. Everything I said is based on empirical information, not what the State Department said. You can use information, not based off Western-sources, to prove the large existance of billionaires in the PRC government and the Communist Party of China. You can prove that the SOEs only make up less than 25% of the economy, and so on. I am simply adhering to Revolutionary defeatism.
Everything I said is based on empirical information, not what the State Department said.
Okay. Provide the sources. Link how it is that China is not socialist or communist. Second, address the other points which you have conveniently neglected. You can’t just cherry-pick and think to get away with addressing half the points brought up.
Lastly, why are you even on lemmygrad? if you hate the user base so much, why submit yourself to this? Most people here are not Hoxhaists. Get over it. Like, you haven’t even explained things well, or made a convincing argument for yourself. It’s all naysaying. Aka a waste of time. You don’t even like Mao. Petty bourgeois? Lenin was petty bourgeois, and Marx! Don’t even get me started on Engles, or Guevara or Castro!
Get outta here with that nonsense.
You need not look further then the constitution, the fundamental law, of the People’s Republic of China itself. During the 10th National People’s Congress, held in 2004, it was decided that private (bourgeois) property should be both allowed and enforced by the “Communist” party. For example, it says, I quote:
legally obtained private property of the citizens shall not be violated
Private ownership of the means of production is legally enforced by the Communist Party, how Socialist.
Do you want sources for all the billionaires? let me present them:
https://www.rt.com/business/553679-shenzhen-china-billionaires-number/
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d774d774d544d30457a6333566d54/index.html
As to your claim that I am “cherry-picking”, that is false. As I have already said, people such as Guo Wengui are very rare. Geo Wengui commited very major crimes to get such as treatment. However, I must once again ask you something; Why does China have billionaires in the first place? Billionaires are not useful for economic growth, they are greedy, selfish, and care about exploiting their labourers. China could, with ease, achive the same, if not more, economic growth with a centrally planned economy. They do not need billionaires, let alone have atleast 100 billionaires in major government posts.
I am on Lemmygrad, particularly this part of Lemmygrad, because I thought I could get an intellectually meaningful discussion with fellow Marxists. I do not hate Dengists (which clearly seems to be an omnipresent ideology here), one of the reasons why I was so invested in this discussion was to help Dengists and other revisionists understand their Capitalistic and Anti-Marxist theory. Of course, now that I see how deeply Revisionist this community is, I have realised that this is rather futile - You Revisionists really think that Billionaires is Socialism, abusing Proletarians is Socialist in character, and selling guns to Anti-Communist governments to murder Communists is Spreading the Revolution. You Dengists use so many complex mental gymnastics to defend a clearly Capitalist state, I was not expecting this, I confess.
我不知道你为什么分不清生产资料与个人财产，像你这样的想法在大跃进时期也出现过，锅碗瓢盆都被收归公有最后落得了什么下场？中国有亿万富翁，但腾讯拿出一年的利润支持乡村振兴战略，拼多多免费帮助落后地区销售产品，这些是资本家良心发现的作为还是被中共要求的作为？我再问你，请问在中国没有开放私营经济的时候中国是否比现在更好？我是中国人，我更喜欢现在的中国
我再问你，生产资料公有制是社会主义的目的还是社会主义的手段？
👍
Ah! a non-response combined with an ad-hominem attack. Mao Zedong was a petite-bourgeois nationalist and revisionist, and later would betray the USSR and invite the Americans into his nation.
To Dengists such as youself, I suggest reading “Theory and Practice of the Revolution”, and perhaps if you have the time, also read “Imperialism and the Revolution”, by Enver Hoxha, it will help you understand applied Marxism.
deleted by creator
无法获得基本的医疗服务？我不知道你是哪里听来的！五十年前全民免费医疗但是质量很差，基本只能治愈感冒之类的小病，想要做手术很困难。四十年前医疗需要花钱，但如果是小病花费很少，如果有较严重的疾病可以得到治疗但要花很多钱。城市职工有医保但农村人没有。如今不论是城市人还是农村人都能获得医保而且医保报销额度不断增高。你从哪里道听途说听来的鬼话
你对中国的叙述越多，我越能感到你对中国的无知
No. China is not a “capitalist” country by Marxist standards. That’s my take as someone who has never been to China. I think the people who want to argue that China is capitalist are sus. If China went along with western capitalism then they wouldn’t accomplish so much and it would be a great shame. What has the CPC been doing this whole time?
-
Bails out wall street, the hub of Capitalism
-
Xi Xinping is a multi-millionaire, if not billionaire
-
Sends guns to Capitalist governments in India, Nepal, and the Philippines to kill Communist revolutionaires
-
Consitution enshires private ownership of the means of production into law, in a similar way to how the USA consitution does
-
Has the largest amont of billionaires, more than any other country, even the USA
-
Creates dept-traps and economic colonies in Africa
-
Forces workers to work until 9PM, with little democratic say in the work-place, said work-place being owned by a millionaire or Western megacorporation
-
The stars on its flag represent class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and landlords
That seems rather Capitalist to me…
Sources:
Experences and Challenges in the development of the Chinese Capital Market
大部分工作者还是执行八小时工作制的，从车流量、公共交通运载量来看就能看出。 十二小时工作制的企业通常是低端制造业与互联网行业。 低端制造业可以选择八小时工作制，当然工资会较低。 如果你拒绝加班，公司不应因此开除你，如果公司想要辞退你那么应当依工作年限给予相应补偿。 由此来看，强迫工人加班到九点完全是无稽之谈 你有任何证据表明习近平家里很有钱吗？习近平的父亲曾经也是中国高官，但习近平依然被派到偏远农村地区任职。 生产资料私有制却促进的经济发展，生活水平改善。在中国实行农业集体化的时期因为不合理的制度导致了农民的不信任，也打击了农业生产。在1956年中国的生猪存栏量下降了一半，因为农民不信任合作社制度。这样的情况一直延续到邓小平改革后几年。我始终相信生产资料公有制不是目的，而是改善人民生活的手段。 国旗上的一颗最大的星代表中国共产党，其余四颗星分别代表工人、农民、知识分子与小资产阶级，并且这是在毛泽东时代确立的
I do think some of the points are fair
but then you linked imperialist sources
除了第四点外，没有一点是正确的
这一切都错了。
第四点是真的，但这不是坏事
If you think that having the bourgeoisie own the means of production is a good thing, then you are a Capitalist-supporter.
如果允许生产资料私有制能够提高中国人的普遍生活水平我就支持，就像邓小平在1978年做的。如果生产资料私有制让中国民不聊生，我就会反对，就像毛泽东的土地改革
Everything I said could, one way or the other, be found on sources like CGTN, RT News, and such.
I simply choose those because they were the most immediately available, I myself am fully aware of their NATO imperialist ideology, but in this one case, they have something atleast somewhat close to the truth to report. Otherwise, you could look at other sources to prove what I said, as things such as trade relations and debt, along with labour laws, are all quite provable
-
Splitting the government system and economy type should make this easier to analyze. Capitalism/Liberalism only ever has one type of economy, the market economy (and sometimes the war economy, in case of fascism). Socialism can switch between different forms of economy (and market economy is one of them).
