Saying “no” is not an argument, and I already explained why, but I’ll go more in-depth here.
The PRC’s economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
SOEs and publicly run companies absolutely eclipse the influence of Huawei (itself a worker-owned cooperative), Alibaba, and Tencent, and further those companies are under the dominion of the CPC as you already said.
Further, multi-party electoralism is not the only form of democracy. If a bunch of people vote to turn left vs a bunch voting to turn right, must these decisions be attached to different parties? This is a fundamental confusion of what democracy actually means, and the people of China overwhelmingly support their electoral system as shown in my previous sources (while Western democracies see far lower rates of approval).
Your only counter, that the only reason Chinese people support the CPC is that they “vanish” if they don’t support the CPC, goes directly against polling results I already linked:
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
The fact that satisfaction and approval most coincides with material improvements, and not fear, is further cemented by polling showing improvements over time:
If having well-sourced information and arguments that extend beyond “no” is considered “bullshit,” then I don’t know what to say. You even tack on a personal attack in the end, calling me “disgusting,” meaning it was more worth your effort to attack me than it was to attack my arguments.
You can just stop arguing, because all you’ve done thus far is make me appear more correct thanks to you dodging my arguments and personally insulting me. Seriously, if you want to delegitimize me, just downvote me and don’t engage, I have consistently provided more sources and demonstrated more knowledge of what we are talking about, so every time you avoid that, it rhetorically strengthens my own arguments. I’m only telling you this because pointing it out makes it even more apparent for onlookers, especially when you call me a “mongrel.”
To start, your argument is self-defeating. I explained how Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the PRC’s economy, and showed how large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. You contradict Marx and call that “Capitalism,” which I already showcased earlier as well, with the quotes on gradually appropriating property in the hands of the State.
Next, your opinion on markets contradicts Marx’s. Your argument is about the PRC not following Marx, not whether or not they follow your opinion. Your only source on the CPC’s lack of dedication to continuing the same process of increasing the productive forces and maintaining public ownership of large firms and key industries? Your word. That’s it, really, just your vibe.
Next, you make the unbacked claim that the CPC is a “small elite” that makes a fuck ton of money. Also false, you can check the sources I included earlier, as well as trying to describe a party with 96 million members as “a small elite.” Quite silly, considering the number of billionaires in the PRC is shrinking as the economy grows and purchasing power of the working class is steadily rising.
Next, you just say not approving of the CPC will get you shot. This is silly, and not backed by the Harvard study I linked earlier:
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
Or the graphics proving this to be the case:
The western pollsters freely admited that propaganda exists within China, but found most importantly that public opinion was shaped most by the fact that China keeps improving their conditions. It’s that simple. Nazi Germany dramatically repressed the people and brutally lowered conditions. This isn’t a serious argument.
I do find it funny that you admit that I’m well-sourced, but provide none of your own and then personally insult me, rather than address my arguments. More legitimacy for my own arguments for free, I guess? Thanks!
Sorry to inform you, but the Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.
More personal insults, more free legitimacy. No, I’ll keep this going for as long as you help me show others here why anticommunism is founded on a rejection of facts and an adherance to the almighty “because I said so.”
Saying “no” is not an argument, and I already explained why, but I’ll go more in-depth here.
The PRC’s economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
SOEs and publicly run companies absolutely eclipse the influence of Huawei (itself a worker-owned cooperative), Alibaba, and Tencent, and further those companies are under the dominion of the CPC as you already said.
Further, multi-party electoralism is not the only form of democracy. If a bunch of people vote to turn left vs a bunch voting to turn right, must these decisions be attached to different parties? This is a fundamental confusion of what democracy actually means, and the people of China overwhelmingly support their electoral system as shown in my previous sources (while Western democracies see far lower rates of approval).
Your only counter, that the only reason Chinese people support the CPC is that they “vanish” if they don’t support the CPC, goes directly against polling results I already linked:
The fact that satisfaction and approval most coincides with material improvements, and not fear, is further cemented by polling showing improvements over time:
If having well-sourced information and arguments that extend beyond “no” is considered “bullshit,” then I don’t know what to say. You even tack on a personal attack in the end, calling me “disgusting,” meaning it was more worth your effort to attack me than it was to attack my arguments.
Removed by mod
You can just stop arguing, because all you’ve done thus far is make me appear more correct thanks to you dodging my arguments and personally insulting me. Seriously, if you want to delegitimize me, just downvote me and don’t engage, I have consistently provided more sources and demonstrated more knowledge of what we are talking about, so every time you avoid that, it rhetorically strengthens my own arguments. I’m only telling you this because pointing it out makes it even more apparent for onlookers, especially when you call me a “mongrel.”
To start, your argument is self-defeating. I explained how Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the PRC’s economy, and showed how large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. You contradict Marx and call that “Capitalism,” which I already showcased earlier as well, with the quotes on gradually appropriating property in the hands of the State.
Next, your opinion on markets contradicts Marx’s. Your argument is about the PRC not following Marx, not whether or not they follow your opinion. Your only source on the CPC’s lack of dedication to continuing the same process of increasing the productive forces and maintaining public ownership of large firms and key industries? Your word. That’s it, really, just your vibe.
Next, you make the unbacked claim that the CPC is a “small elite” that makes a fuck ton of money. Also false, you can check the sources I included earlier, as well as trying to describe a party with 96 million members as “a small elite.” Quite silly, considering the number of billionaires in the PRC is shrinking as the economy grows and purchasing power of the working class is steadily rising.
Next, you just say not approving of the CPC will get you shot. This is silly, and not backed by the Harvard study I linked earlier:
Or the graphics proving this to be the case:
The western pollsters freely admited that propaganda exists within China, but found most importantly that public opinion was shaped most by the fact that China keeps improving their conditions. It’s that simple. Nazi Germany dramatically repressed the people and brutally lowered conditions. This isn’t a serious argument.
I do find it funny that you admit that I’m well-sourced, but provide none of your own and then personally insult me, rather than address my arguments. More legitimacy for my own arguments for free, I guess? Thanks!
Sorry to inform you, but the Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.
More personal insults, more free legitimacy. No, I’ll keep this going for as long as you help me show others here why anticommunism is founded on a rejection of facts and an adherance to the almighty “because I said so.”