No, China is a socialist country. The working classes are the ones that control the state, and as a consequence policy is directed towards their interests. Capitalists exist in a cage, used primarily for the beneficial socializing aspect markets have with respect to disconnected, smaller and competitive industries.
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “country with the most doubly so” bit. China isn’t dominated by finance capital and does not have the economic forces compelling imperialism that the west has. Imperialism isn’t just something people do, it’s economically compelled.
China has the second most billionaires in the world, man. They can call themselves whatever they want, economic inequality like that is a clear sign of oligarchy. Or do you have some other explanation on how someone can “earn” thousands of times more than others in a supposedly fair system? If the workers own their excess, why do you still have hoarders? How do you still have hoarders?
China has the second most billionaires in the world
How about you look at it by rate as opposed to using raw numbers when comparing a country of 1.4 Billion to much smaller countries (you might then come to realize by rate China is down near India while being far more developed).
economic inequality like that is a clear sign of oligarchy
No its not. Its a symptom of a private sector (and thus some private property) continuing to exist.
If the workers own their excess, why do you still have hoarders? How do you still have hoarders?
Because the trade off was refusing to make use of market relations and remain spreading equal poverty under the Gang of Four.
I was right you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
China has capitalists, yes. This does not mean they control the economy. As I already said, capitalists exist in a cage, used primarily for the beneficial socializing aspect markets have with respect to disconnected, smaller and competitive industries. To dogmatically collectivize even highly underdeveloped industry is a misstep, which was committed by the Gang of Four.
Socialist countries like the USSR and DPRK that have more tightly controlled economies are typically this way due to encirclement and needing to defend themselves, not because this is the most sensible course for development from a Marxist perspective. Even in the USSR, Stalin had the artels, which were essentially worker cooperatives, well after the end of the NEP.
Trying to centrally plan a bunch of small businesses would be a nightmare, but it’s much easier to plan large industry. That’s why the basis of communism is large industry, and why one of the most critical tasks of any socialist country is to develop the productive forces in the best way possible. China allows limited private property for the progressive role it plays in comparison to small businesses and other petty production.
How familiar are you with Marxism? China’s economy makes perfect sense when viewed from a Marxist angle, and they are Marxist-Leninists.
No, China is a socialist country. The working classes are the ones that control the state, and as a consequence policy is directed towards their interests. Capitalists exist in a cage, used primarily for the beneficial socializing aspect markets have with respect to disconnected, smaller and competitive industries.
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “country with the most doubly so” bit. China isn’t dominated by finance capital and does not have the economic forces compelling imperialism that the west has. Imperialism isn’t just something people do, it’s economically compelled.
China has the second most billionaires in the world, man. They can call themselves whatever they want, economic inequality like that is a clear sign of oligarchy. Or do you have some other explanation on how someone can “earn” thousands of times more than others in a supposedly fair system? If the workers own their excess, why do you still have hoarders? How do you still have hoarders?
How about you look at it by rate as opposed to using raw numbers when comparing a country of 1.4 Billion to much smaller countries (you might then come to realize by rate China is down near India while being far more developed).
No its not. Its a symptom of a private sector (and thus some private property) continuing to exist.
Because the trade off was refusing to make use of market relations and remain spreading equal poverty under the Gang of Four.
I was right you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
China has capitalists, yes. This does not mean they control the economy. As I already said, capitalists exist in a cage, used primarily for the beneficial socializing aspect markets have with respect to disconnected, smaller and competitive industries. To dogmatically collectivize even highly underdeveloped industry is a misstep, which was committed by the Gang of Four.
Socialist countries like the USSR and DPRK that have more tightly controlled economies are typically this way due to encirclement and needing to defend themselves, not because this is the most sensible course for development from a Marxist perspective. Even in the USSR, Stalin had the artels, which were essentially worker cooperatives, well after the end of the NEP.
Trying to centrally plan a bunch of small businesses would be a nightmare, but it’s much easier to plan large industry. That’s why the basis of communism is large industry, and why one of the most critical tasks of any socialist country is to develop the productive forces in the best way possible. China allows limited private property for the progressive role it plays in comparison to small businesses and other petty production.
How familiar are you with Marxism? China’s economy makes perfect sense when viewed from a Marxist angle, and they are Marxist-Leninists.