The PRC has a socialist market economy, a form of developing socialism where the commanding heights and critical industries are socially owned, while emerging industries are marketized. This is because the CPC understands the Marxist critique of capitalism, which isn’t that private property is morally wrong, but that the basis of social ownership is centralized, socialized production as seen in developed markets, not decentralized and scattered production, which instead suits markets.
The CPC already tried the more dogmatic method of collectivizing everything, and this went the way Marxists would predict: unstable. The developing areas were in contradiction between their unsuitable level of productive forces, and an attempt at forcing a higher level of social organization upon them. This resulted in dogmatic errors that have since been corrected.
Regarding the CPC, they are a proletarian party. The state in Marxist analysis can never be a neutral “state,” it can only be a “feudal state,” a “capitalist state,” a “socialist state.” They can only represent the ruling class of society, as determined by which class controls the economic base. The proletariat and peasantry took power in 1949, and since then have had dominating control over the base and superstructure. Hierarchy is not class, that is not Marxist. The capitalists that exist in China are under the domination of the state, they are not in power.
Vietnam is much the same way. A vibes-based anecdote does not actually argue against the fact that Vietnam’s economy is dominated by the state, which is run by the working class against capitalists. This was decided by the revolution.
Regarding the chauvanist claims you’ve made of China’s laws regarding national unity, they are always there to support national identity of ethnic minorities while promoting a greater socialist unity. You sourced none of your claims here, but if you actually listen to what ethnic minorities in China have to say, or if you understand that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the NPC as a part of affirmative action, then this falls apart.
I have obfuscated no facts whatsoever. You operate from a position where you assume your own point of view is correct, then again immediately dismiss me as you would Cuba or the Black Panther Party for upholding the DPRK as a legitimate socialist state born out of an anti-colonial struggle. It’s enormously anti-critical and entirely bad-faith.
Your entire comment was one long-winded attempt at obfuscation, complete with PRC state-media sources to back it up.
You sourced none of your claims here
Because I don’t need to. The facts speak for themselves as easily-accessible “common knowledge” to anyone who looks at objective sources.
Plus I’ve had these arguments with .mls like you, and even when I do provide objective sources, you all reject them just because they’re not from PRC-controlled state media. I’m not wasting my time.
You operate from a position where you assume your own point of view is correct
Oh, really? Traveling to other countries and seeing how people live there, getting a sense of the cultural milieu and the routines of daily life, and listening to people when they talk about how they feel about various things, is all just an “assumption” I’m making that my “own point of view is correct”?
As opposed to what you’re doing, which is what, sitting at home somewhere immersed in rabbit holes on the fringiest corners of the internet? Or are you sitting in a comfy office building somewhere with a database full of party-approved talking points you’re getting paid to disseminate?
A vibes-based anecdote does not actually argue against the fact that Vietnam’s economy is dominated by the state, which is run by the working class against capitalists. This was decided by the revolution.
This you telling me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears? You don’t know shit about real life there, and it shows. If observing first-hand is a “vibes-based approach,” then you’re rejecting empiricism in favor of dogmatic idealism.
Regarding the chauvinist claims you’ve made of China’s laws regarding national unity, they are always there to support national identity of ethnic minorities while promoting a greater socialist unity.
Big LOL there. 'nuff said.
Also, what’s chauvinist in this situation is the Han-dominated PRC committing ethnic cleansings and cultural erasure against every minority in their empire.
As for the rest of what you said, that’s a lot of mental gymnastics just to say “well yes, the PRC is centralized, authoritarian, and hierarchical, as well as capitalistic and market-driven, but it’s okay when they do it because they’re not the Evil West™.”…
No, my comment was not “one long-winded attempt at obfuscation.” I clearly and explicitly answered each one of your points, grounding them in Marxist theory, and referencing facts where relevant. Only one of the 3 sources was state-backed, and it was one that simply told publicly available information about the demographic makeup of the NPC, which is hardly something controversial. To doubt it would be to believe anything said by the Chinese state is wrong, which leads me to believe that you would tell them they were wrong if they said the Earth is round.
You aren’t providing sources, despite needing to, and you rely on “common sense.” This is nonsense. Anyone can see that you are woefully under-prepared, and so you just resort to baseless claims and character assassinations. You have no evidence on your side, so you lie about me and make up some fantasy of me being paid to be a communist online.
Simply dismissing all of my points as “mental gymnastics” makes it abundantly clear for anyone observing that you cannot actually counter my points, and so are taking a deliberately bad-faith route to dodge the necessity to engage. It’s cowardice and bad-faith.
The PRC has a socialist market economy, a form of developing socialism where the commanding heights and critical industries are socially owned, while emerging industries are marketized. This is because the CPC understands the Marxist critique of capitalism, which isn’t that private property is morally wrong, but that the basis of social ownership is centralized, socialized production as seen in developed markets, not decentralized and scattered production, which instead suits markets.
The CPC already tried the more dogmatic method of collectivizing everything, and this went the way Marxists would predict: unstable. The developing areas were in contradiction between their unsuitable level of productive forces, and an attempt at forcing a higher level of social organization upon them. This resulted in dogmatic errors that have since been corrected.
Regarding the CPC, they are a proletarian party. The state in Marxist analysis can never be a neutral “state,” it can only be a “feudal state,” a “capitalist state,” a “socialist state.” They can only represent the ruling class of society, as determined by which class controls the economic base. The proletariat and peasantry took power in 1949, and since then have had dominating control over the base and superstructure. Hierarchy is not class, that is not Marxist. The capitalists that exist in China are under the domination of the state, they are not in power.
Vietnam is much the same way. A vibes-based anecdote does not actually argue against the fact that Vietnam’s economy is dominated by the state, which is run by the working class against capitalists. This was decided by the revolution.
Regarding the chauvanist claims you’ve made of China’s laws regarding national unity, they are always there to support national identity of ethnic minorities while promoting a greater socialist unity. You sourced none of your claims here, but if you actually listen to what ethnic minorities in China have to say, or if you understand that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the NPC as a part of affirmative action, then this falls apart.
I have obfuscated no facts whatsoever. You operate from a position where you assume your own point of view is correct, then again immediately dismiss me as you would Cuba or the Black Panther Party for upholding the DPRK as a legitimate socialist state born out of an anti-colonial struggle. It’s enormously anti-critical and entirely bad-faith.
Your entire comment was one long-winded attempt at obfuscation, complete with PRC state-media sources to back it up.
Because I don’t need to. The facts speak for themselves as easily-accessible “common knowledge” to anyone who looks at objective sources.
Plus I’ve had these arguments with .mls like you, and even when I do provide objective sources, you all reject them just because they’re not from PRC-controlled state media. I’m not wasting my time.
Oh, really? Traveling to other countries and seeing how people live there, getting a sense of the cultural milieu and the routines of daily life, and listening to people when they talk about how they feel about various things, is all just an “assumption” I’m making that my “own point of view is correct”?
As opposed to what you’re doing, which is what, sitting at home somewhere immersed in rabbit holes on the fringiest corners of the internet? Or are you sitting in a comfy office building somewhere with a database full of party-approved talking points you’re getting paid to disseminate?
This you telling me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears? You don’t know shit about real life there, and it shows. If observing first-hand is a “vibes-based approach,” then you’re rejecting empiricism in favor of dogmatic idealism.
Big LOL there. 'nuff said.
Also, what’s chauvinist in this situation is the Han-dominated PRC committing ethnic cleansings and cultural erasure against every minority in their empire.
As for the rest of what you said, that’s a lot of mental gymnastics just to say “well yes, the PRC is centralized, authoritarian, and hierarchical, as well as capitalistic and market-driven, but it’s okay when they do it because they’re not the Evil West™.”…
No, my comment was not “one long-winded attempt at obfuscation.” I clearly and explicitly answered each one of your points, grounding them in Marxist theory, and referencing facts where relevant. Only one of the 3 sources was state-backed, and it was one that simply told publicly available information about the demographic makeup of the NPC, which is hardly something controversial. To doubt it would be to believe anything said by the Chinese state is wrong, which leads me to believe that you would tell them they were wrong if they said the Earth is round.
You aren’t providing sources, despite needing to, and you rely on “common sense.” This is nonsense. Anyone can see that you are woefully under-prepared, and so you just resort to baseless claims and character assassinations. You have no evidence on your side, so you lie about me and make up some fantasy of me being paid to be a communist online.
Simply dismissing all of my points as “mental gymnastics” makes it abundantly clear for anyone observing that you cannot actually counter my points, and so are taking a deliberately bad-faith route to dodge the necessity to engage. It’s cowardice and bad-faith.
you are doing great
🫡