|
Patrick Spens posted:Hey Homework Explainer. What is your definition of socialism, and why does it apply to China today? I look forward to getting dogpiled here, but it's a fair question and I'm glad you moved it to this thread. So, first and foremost, much of the dialogue around China and its economy underplays just how important the state sectors still are. This article goes into a lot more detail than I ever could, but basically the "commanding heights" of the economy remain in the hands of the state and the CPC, which is nominally a workers' party. (It is a workers' party, but I'll get into that in a bit.) State ownership does not socialism make, however. Theoretically, a capitalist class could develop from a market-structured socialism. But — and this is important — the state has safeguards against this very thing. The stock market is heavily insulated from the rest of the economy, which is why we hear so much about the "upcoming crisis" that has yet to materialize. Foreign companies are allowed to invest and produce in China, but under heavy regulation to prevent a capitalist foothold. SOE executive salaries are controlled by the government, and have in fact been reduced under Xi Jinping. This restricts the possibility of capital accumulation outside of purchasing luxury goods, which of course people point to as proof China isn't socialist. But some people owning high-performance cars or whatever doesn't automatically make an entire economy capitalist. That's not a materialist analysis. Here's some info on the Chinese economy in general and some of the safeguards I referred to earlier. 1 2 3 4 (Yes, it's Heritage Foundation, I know. But numbers are numbers.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 Now, the other thread talked about the lack of a safety net. This is simply not true. Market reforms did alter the level of services like health care, but it's not like an entire industry just disappeared. The new, modernized system of health care is approaching universal coverage and should get there by 2020. The dibao program isn't perfect, but remains one of the largest guarantors of a minimum income in the world. And the broader safety net is expanding, not deflating. I doubt I'm the only communist who would prefer a return to the "iron rice bowl" system of Mao's China, but I also recognize the Chinese know better than me how to sustain a population of a billion people. Now that they've developed their economy to be on track with the rest of the world, they can move back toward a "better" socialism, one which continues to reduce poverty AND inequality. Lastly, the makeup of the party. None of this means much if the workers aren't the people in the party, right? So, let's take a look. By a wide margin, the largest group in the party by occupation are farmers, fishers, herders, frontline workers. "Professional technicians" make up another big group of party members, with students and state agency workers making up the smallest groups by occupation. Now, you could argue the executive committees are staffed by elites, but that seems to me more the way governments generally work in the modern age. Would a person go straight from being a fisherman to General Secretary or President? Probably not, and nice a story though that might be, I'd prefer the chief executive of a country with over a billion people to know exactly what they're doing. There are Politburo members who have backgrounds in labor, like Wang Qishan, in any case. Hopefully this answers your question. Let me know if you have any others. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jul 28, 2016 |
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We might question whether the government investments are in truly useful economic activity and not more concerned with boosting metrics no reason it can't be both, since the two can and frequently do go hand in hand. arguing otherwise is kind of like the guy on the first page of the thread who suggested china wants to keep people employed merely to maintain power rather than, y'know, keep people employed
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
professor_curly posted:This is the Chinese version of entitlements, basically. They are throwing money at non-productive infrastructure and labor intensive, noncompetitive industries to keep people working, because mass unemployment with no safety net is what gets people in a rebellious mood. keeping people employed....how devious
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:also lmao, way to take the tankie tack "the only imperialism is American imperialism" imperialism being a specific stage of capitalism and not "a government doing things" goes all the way back to lenin and has plenty of theoretical backing. that definition clashing with a more broad use of the term doesn't make it an incorrect framework
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
wyldhoney posted:Thanks for the update folks. the united states has destabilized the caribbean, overthrown governments there and stunted development for decades but the chinese might send tourists. may god have mercy on us all
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Comedy set aside, Africa is a good indication that China is no less predatory then any other neo-colonialist power. It's the same game of weapons/investments in exchange for national resources that it has always been. is it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:On the other hand, Sudan. you'll need to be more specific
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
MrNemo posted:It's almost like the majority of respondents based their opinion on which country they thought capable on entering and intruding in their domestic sphere. Except for Italy who is apparently worried about China a lot. that's the afghani flag
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 15:11
|
|