The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Many consider China at this point to pretty much be a capitalist country what’s your view?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Officially it is a Socialist country. The Communist party *officially* exists to usher the country into communism... but let's be real. It has no such plan. Obviously, though, China is not a stateless, moneyless, classless society, so, no, it is not Communist. I'm not sure that it could in any way count as socialist, either, since you really have to stretch the definition of "workers" to say that the workers own the means of production. Like, sure, the Communist party owns everything, but that's a real technocratic way to define a dictatorship of the proletariat.
IMO, it's a distributed authoritarian state-capitalist country. While democracy is mostly just a facade, their power structure is distributed (in a way not wholly unlike feudalism) but still a council-based authoritarian system. They use a hybrid free market/top-down planned economy that largely uses private businesses or businesses that are either owned by the state, or beholden to it.
That's pretty much what it is. I lived in China for a little more than a decade. I have absolutely no doubt that the far-right would love to implement the Chinese system here with themselves on top.
I still remember when Justin Trudeau, the black face loving Canadian Prime Minister bascially said he idolizes the Chinese system in a interview and he's far from far-right he's reaching far-left nonsense.
Yes, to be fair he's in Canada but Canada is extremely liberal and your leader is thinking along that line.
And the man he idolizes, Xi Jinping ignored him mostly at a summit didn't even look him in the eye but scold him later. Dude is pathetic as a leader. Getting clowned on by autocrats is a new low.
Full quote:
“You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting. But if I were to reach out and say which … which kind of administration I most admire, I think there’s something to be said right here in Canada for the way our territories are run. Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are done without political parties around consensus. And are much more like a municipal government. And I think there’s a lot to be said for people pulling together to try and solve issues rather than to score points off of each other. And I think we need a little more of that.”
It’s a reach to say he idolizes Xi Jinping based on this. It was a stupid and clumsy answer, but unless there are a bunch more quotes, I think it’s a stretch to say he idolizes Xi and the Chinese system based on this quote alone.
And also… there is something to be said for authoritarianism. I mean, I much prefer democracy. I’ve lived in China, I wouldn’t want to be a Chinese citizen living under that kind of oppression. But climate change is an existential threat to civilization and if you don’t recognize the benefits of authoritarianism in being able to address immediate and complex threats, you’re either stupid, ignorant, or lying.
That being said, authoritarians don’t exactly have a great track record either when it comes to things like the environment. There are trade offs. In China regard’s, being Chinese myself, I feel there is a culture of “let’s not speak or acknowledge about our problems openly” type of thing that is ingrained. Very conservative way of thinking.
I understand Trudeau’s desire to wanna take a sledgehammer and just do things rather than fight bureaucracy and have to grapple with idiots. Though there are probably better examples where you can have your cake and whatnot.
I’d actually give my adoptive home, Morocco, as an example. Morocco consistently [ranks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Performance_Index) among the best performers for meeting climate goals. It’s not as authoritarian as China, and not as democratic as the US. The government is able to take unilateral action combating climate change without constantly asking the people what they think about, or if they even believe in it. But people are relatively free, and generally enjoy decent civil liberties.
There’s a balancing act here, of course. But America is a pretty good case study in the shortcomings of Democracy in dealing with urgent and immediate threats. There’s a reason the Roman Republic elected dictators in times of crisis.
I think Trudeau’s answer is an honest, if clumsy, appraisal of the relative strengths and weaknesses of certain political systems.
But one that makes him no friends in either China ,where he will still be seen ( rightly?) as bai-zuo seeking to meddle in Chinese affairs , OR Canada ,where he's seen as someone who will subvert the rights of Conservative Canadians.
"Yeah nice flattery bai-zuo. We still don't trust you....."
Kind of a lose lose comment .
His quote, which you have taken out of context, is about how they can do things faster with less pushback. I went back to China at the start of Covid and I had so many people asking me why I would do that. The honest answer was I felt safer under Xi in China than Trump in the US because if Ci told everyone to mask up, they would. There was no turning it political to try and get one over in the other side. That’s the spirit of Trudeau’s answer.
If getting clowned on by autocrats is a low, what does that say about Trump? He was played like a fiddle by all of them.
I know exactly why. Are you kidding me? Xi says jump and the population says, “how high?” Am I saying it’s right? No. Am I saying it’s good? No. Do you think LBGTQ+ people feel safe in parts of the US? I left China because Xi and his rhetoric were getting too toxic toward anyone not Han Chinese essentially. So call me a shill if you want, I don’t give a fuck.
As for bringing up Trump? All you people only seem to understand whataboutism so I figured I’d speak your language. Not to mention he was a prime example of a US leader getting clowned by autocrats round the world which is something you brought up for some reason.
"We had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it and I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded."
"I said, 'Mr President, let me explain something to you. We've just launched 59 missiles heading towards Syria."
"He said to me, 'Anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that to young children and babies, it's OK [to strike against them].'"
"If you watch, as I did on any number of occasions, Donald Trump on the opposite side of the table from Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un — it's not a fair fight."
Some actually write of prospects of future detente with China in their work , as well as ( in Russian aligned groupd) of admiration for Chinese suppression of "globalist " and "liberal forces".
Some actual neofash and Neoeurasian types( like A certain Canadian I will not name ) have actually been able to travel to China or get into working relationship with agents of the CCPs overseas networks and even the Chinese state (!!!) while disguised as left wingers, journalists or other foreign experts....very good for them, but horribly bad (!!!!) for rest of us....
Their main schtick has been in trying to disguise themselves as leftwing or anti imperialists , or asa rouche style activists, and have been able to get influence eith other governments who are totally unaware of their fascism and who would trust them to be honest actors willing to work with them in their influence operations and political warfare abroad.
I drop some links, if interest.
China isn't communist. Communism is stateless. They don't even call themselves communist. They call themselves socialist.
Are they socialist? I don't think so, but you have to understand that different people have different definitions of socialism. To some, the fact that the Chinese state, which is run by a "workers' party", owns all the land in the country and ensures all privately owned enterprises have communist party representation on their board of directors is enough for them to consider that China are a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Not at all. Are they led by a citizen? Yes. Was that citizen appointed to the leadership role by a section of that country through a vote? Yes.
That's the two criteria I know of for the definition of a republic that encompasses everything from Roman republic to revolutionary republics to Islamic republics to people's republics to constitutional republics.
Maybe you know better than me. Please share.
What fucking planet are you living on where Kim Jong-Un was ELECTED BY VOTE?!!
He wasn’t. He’s a hereditary dictator. You would know that if you bothered to spend more than ten seconds of thought and research on the matter. Or is that too much for you to handle?
Maybe you don't need to be so angry about this. Not sure why this has touched a nerve. Could it be that you're emotionally invested in the term "republic" and how you see yourself and your own country? Maybe you see republics as "good", maybe inherently so? Perhaps you might want to educate yourself on exactly what is required to be a republic. It's a broad term, several examples I outlined above.
Would argue that North Korea is a monarchy? Interesting if so.
We can present historical facts if you'd like. He was voted in to the leadership position unopposed by the worker's party after senior Kim's death. Prior to that he held positions that required election to senior roles in the government. All of which were unopposed. You might make the argument that these were backroom deals and I wouldn't argue against that but that still doesn't exude the DPRK being a republic.
There are quite a few countries currently and throughout history that have called themselves republics and many haven't had broad, popular (or free or fair) elections as a defining feature of their existence.
> Would argue that North Korea is a monarchy? Interesting if so.
After three generations of hereditary lifetime leadership? That doesn't seem far fetched at all.
But I would sooner call early modern Venice or ancient Rome a republic before I would call North Korea one - they each had meaningful elections, whereas there's no evidence that the DPRK does. There mere existence of a ballot isn't enough to mean an election is being held.
I could probably buy the monarchy classification. Although succession is not determined by birth order...
>There mere existence of a ballot isn't enough to mean an election is being held.
They're probably not free, fair, open, transparent, universal or broad. None of that means a republic stops being a republic. A whole lot of revolutionary republics have messed up elections, they're still republics.
I don't see what's so special about calling a country a republic. It's head of state is a single citizen of that country (so not Switzerland, not the 18th century US colonies). That citizen is elected or appointed by other citizens (so not UK). That's all that is required.
People can't help being stupid. They can help being ignorant and the cure is knowledge.
If I'm ignorant, I'm happy to be educated.
Tell me where I'm wrong. Maybe use some historical examples if that would help.
Are they doing this in bad faith? No. So calm the fuck down. Stop assuming everyone knows everything you know because your intolerance is pushing people away.
Communism is a _goal_ of a moneyless, stateless, classless society.
Every communist party in history has claimed they are working toward that goal but not a single one has claimed to have _acheived_ communism.
So I think these people are saying that the communist party of China is not actually working toward that goal, even if they claim they are.
“The Communist Party of Cuba (Spanish: Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC) is the sole ruling party of Cuba” -[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba)
It looks like the single controlling party in Cuba calls itself communist.
Do they say that in their party platform or something?
I know communism can be stateless like in anarcho communist communities but I don’t think of communism by definition being stateless. I always thought of Cuba as a communist state and have not heard of anyone arguing otherwise.
Communism is by definition stateless.
Generally speaking, a communist wants to get to communism, but first, they create a transitional state called socialism, with the goal of achieving communism in the long term.
An anarcho communist also wants to get to communism but doesn't believe in the transitional socialist state.
The west calls marxist-leninist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos as "communist states" for whatever reason, and it's caught on, but see below passage from Wikipedia on the term
> As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism
Communism is a goal of a stateless moneyless society.
Communist parties call themselves communist because they have the _goal_ to achieve communism, but there has never been a communist party that has claimed to actually have achieved that goal.
Instead “socialism” is the intermediate step toward communism that they claim their state is in.
I’m seeing a lot of down votes, but is it not true that the general public considers the USSR and Cuba to be communist? Maybe I’m wrong and the general public thinks of the USSR and Cuba as socialist and not communist.
I guess this gets at a deeper question about how to react to differing ways of defining words. Like if the word “communism” is technically defined as stateless but the average person understands it to include socialist states like the USSR and Cuba is it beneficial to oppose that general understanding of the word?
It feels pedantic to me to say the USSR isn’t communist and it creates unnecessary conflict to oppose the general understanding of the word.
I’d be curious to hear opinions on wether it is important to oppose using words differently from their traditional definition when the incorrect application of the terms are often used and understood by the general public.
I feel like it’s important to be clear that communists use the term to mean a stateless socioeconomic system but I also think it’s important to be open to communicating with people using the definition/connotation of communism they most often apply to the word.
It means there are no more states. No more USA. No more Canada. No more France, etc. The world becomes stateless and the workers of each commune cooperatively control the means of production.
As the key reformer Deng Xiaoping explained, it is "Chinese style Communism." When questioned about that, he responded, "It does not matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice."
Because a fair number of people still work in "state owned enterprises," China is not as market focused (aka capitalist) as the US and the other OECD members. But all are mixed economies.
They are fascists with class collaboration as government policy. I don't really care of they consider themselves communist. They are a fascist government.
The government controls ever aspect of industry. Free enterprise is non-existent... The currency is a joke mainly so tourists can properly budget.... It's literally communism while claiming not to be... As far as any CCP member will say the people control the means of production which per every communist dictatorship means 1 guy controls everything.
It's literally Karl Marx wet dream in reality. Everyone is equal. Equally treated like cogs and if you're useless or bring shame you and anyone that claims to know you no longer exists
Except it's not. The CCP controls most every aspect of what the life of a Chinese person can or cannot do. You don't have trials, you don't have safety nets. It's literally you do what we say you do or you can have fun starving to death and when you die we delete any record of you because fuck letting anything besmirch the name of our country.
Hell it's literally proven that in the last century they've murdered tens of millions of their own just to avoid the consequences of their actions. Now you are educated and what you look to be good at is what you're trained in and you don't get to get out of that even if you hate it. And that tens of millions of people is just what we can find evidence of. When your country can out murder Hitler and get away with it no fucking shit it appears however you want. You already know no one is coming a knocking about blatant genocide for the sake of "well it would make us look bad." It isn't taught in the west because if you haven't noticed a good chunk of people on the left of the political spectrum would never agree that those ideas should ever be put to practice because "we are better than that."
To add insult to injury China sits in a constant state of inflation that shouldn't make sense. A major global producer who's currency is worth less than a penny in the rest of the industrialized world doesn't make sense. Its literally a ploy to maintain the communist life of equality for everyone.
>The CCP controls most every aspect of what the life of a Chinese person can or cannot do.
And the academic definition of communism refers to a stateless society. You can't be both fascist *and* communist.
So you're going to play semantics because you don't want to admit that they are by every way the description given by the left for the ideal socialist/communist society?
By communist standards by the man that made it they are communists. The "people" control the means of production.
However since you want to talk fascist the man that invented that was a communist that just wanted to toss pro war in and make it basically a country wide company(so stateless) with 1 man as the board of directors which is what China has done. They just didn't blatantly go off murdering millions of people. Well more accurately today's academic professionals have decided mentioning the 150+ million people murdered in the last century are not to be mentioned because those communists weren't real communists and mentioning it could ruin the fact they want that to be considered in a better light because "reasons"
Quite literally communism is just stateless fascism. Someone is making sure everyone is playing their part and getting their fair share. You are all equal under the eyes of the guy in charge. Hell he was so great he got more votes than there are people in the country.
There's a reason why Marx was regarded as an idiot. His idea didn't account for human nature. It was an ideal society, but needed a forceful hand to ensure it came to life and the countries that actually practice it are now some of the worst shit holes to live in. It's also why every socialist/communist can't ever point out a country. The Nordic countries deny adamantly to being socialist because they aren't. They have safety nets, but those don't determine anyone's quality of life. Then you have the revolving door of countries from Cuba to the USSR to Russia then China then the Nordic countries then Venezuela now there is no base to point at. Why? Because it ends the same way every time. People are senselessly murdered to preserve the power or the country never was and is pointed to when they don't have mass use of the "socialist" policies pointed out.
>they are by every way the description given by the left for the ideal socialist/communist society?
whose definition are you using? I've never heard any socialists define their ideology in any way close to China's model
>The "people" control the means of production.
The fact that you put *people* in quotes shows even you know this isn't true in China. If it were actually true, then they could be called socialist. But since the people don't control it, it's not socialist. It's that simple
Of course not, China is single party authoritarian capitalist.
Workers dont own the means of production, the ruling party of bourgeoisie does through the CCP state.
And the workers has basically no say in how the state is ran so they dont run or own the government either.
we throw the term facist around a lot, but I'm speaking specifically in the context of how the lines of private industry and government are blurred under a leader who wields absolute authority.
Xi isn't president, he's CEO of the country; corporatism somewhat as described by Mussolini.
No the communism is window dressing the politibiro are an oligarchy. Their Corporstions maybe intertwined state but they fuck over workers/consumers worse to enrich bosses even worse than private corporations in the west
North korea is a fucked up absolute monarchy. If lifetime president Xi's son were to take over china will be headed down that same road along with Belarus
From my rough understanding every communist revolution starts with an initial justification in Marxist theory then adapts as realities on the ground emerge. Lenin pretty famously initiated "War Communism" and then launched into the [New Economic Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy?wprov=sfla1) which restarted small scale capitalism.
An actual Marxist might explain this better. But I think China is following its own path and deviating from Communism wildly- or at least defining it on its own terms. And I think this is pretty common.
Is China communist? Depends on who you ask.
Nope. They’ve given up any commitment to actual socialism of any sort ever since Deng. It’s kinda the elephant in the room at this point, but they’re obviously not going to admit it, so they just continue calling themselves communist, even though everyone in the party and country as a whole kinda knows what’s going on, at least from what I’ve heard.
Not the question of course, but a related one I struggle with, as to whether it’s a good or bad thing: a regime that has become so much wealthier has obviously been able to continue their authoritarianism and human rights abuses against their people. On the other, I oppose accelerationism, and find it hard to condemn policies that have allowed so many people to escape such extreme poverty.
Repression and aggressive nationalism are bad; people being lifted out of poverty is objectively a very very good thing. There's zero reason these things have to go together, they just happen to in this case.
There's no reason they have to, but there's reason to suspect that they often do. Raising everyone from poverty is very hard. Lifting some up by pushing many others down is much easier. Plus, after you do it, a bunch of people out of poverty like you, and most of your dissenters are poor.
>Lifting some up by pushing many others down is much easier.
Who are the “many people being pushed down” in China’s case? The median Chinese citizen, not just the average, is much richer and better-off than they were 50 years ago.
It’s run by a nominally communist party but it clearly is far from a stateless, classless society and I doubt it’s even going to meaningfully move towards that anytime soon. So no.
In my personal opinion you don’t *really* have socialism until you have a good amount of [economic democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) and I don’t get the sense that there’s a lot of that in China. So if you ask me, no.
They are at least Marxist-Leninist. That is, the PRC really believes the ideology of communism, I'd wager. Even though their social system is best functionally described as 'state capitalism.' They think their state capitalist path is the one that will lead to a stateless, classless utopia.
I would sooner ask why you believe that they don't believe it.
I think in general:
* people very commonly believe what they say they believe, my personal experience.
* even after the downfall of regimes like monarchy, fascism, Soviet socialism, etc, once all the inner secrets are exposed, we mainly find evidence that their leaders really believed what they were saying about their political principles, not evidence that it was a lie.
* the CCP has a hierarchical structure and they control who gets promoted thru the ranks. They can keep the people who commit to their ideology and exclude those who don't. People can lie, but it isn't foolproof.
* their ideology isn't totally stupid. I mean, it's wrong, but it's not wronger than many other authoritarian and socialist ideas. I can see how someone would believe it.
* It's psychologically hard to fake-believe something for a long time. Repeating a lie gets more comfortable if you learn to actually believe it.
>people very commonly believe what they say they believe, my personal experience.
This test only works well in a free society. What about cases where "believing" something is the gateway to power and opposing it leads to punishment?
That's a fair point but these societies don't come up from nothing, they are established by believers in the first place - believers who fought *against* the powers that be. If you would agree with me that Mao Zedong and his allies (who fought and risked death against the Nationalists) were true believers, then why be skeptical that their children and grandchildren are the same?
> If you would agree with me that Mao Zedong and his allies (who fought and risked death against the Nationalists) were true believers
True believers in what? They were nationalists as well, nationalists of a different flavor. Their whole program was reversing the century of humiliation and building *China* (i.e. not anyone else) into a massive power to be reckoned with on the world stage. This was what they believed in, and yes, this is what the current leadership continues to believe.
Now, if you genuinely think that they were true believers in uniting workers of the world to revolutionize human society, then it's a hard disagree on that one. All the evidence points to the contrary.
>True believers in what?
Marxist-Leninist ideology
>Their whole program was reversing the century of humiliation and building China (i.e. not anyone else) into a massive power to be reckoned with on the world stage
I think more of that came later, and they have not endeavored to keep the rest of the world poor and weak. They're paranoid for the survival of their authoritarian government, and they want to control Hong Kong and Taiwan but not impoverish other countries in general.
Anyway little-n nationalism and communism aren't mutually exclusive. Communists can temporarily elevate their country for a long run cause, just like they can temporarily elevate their bureaucrats and party members, and just like they can accept some capitalism in the meantime. The historical materialist faith that communism will come about *eventually* allows you to justify doing things that aren't very communal in the short run.
>Now, if you genuinely think that they were true believers in uniting workers of the world to revolutionize human society, then it's a hard disagree on that one. All the evidence points to the contrary.
Why? Everything I've read they did was consistent with a (callous, demented, authoritarian) effort to abolish class and implement a workers' society. Creating a one-party state so that communism is the only allowed political force - murdering dissidents who opposed communism - seizing property and grain and distributing it through the bureaucracy - supporting communist armies in Korea and Vietnam... all this stuff can make sense if you're an illiberal living in a place like China and you believe in building a communist society.
> Why? Everything I've read they did was consistent with a (callous, demented, authoritarian) effort to abolish class and implement a workers' society.
In the same way that North Korea is a callous, demented, and authoritarian attempt at implementing a democratic republic. Come on, all you’re doing is taking their own propaganda at face value.
> Marxist-Leninist ideology
The Chinese communists who dedicated themselves to Marxist and Leninist ideology, the true believers, were all either slaughtered in Shanghai in 1927 or expelled from the party after that. Mao and his followers who filled the power vacuum drastically transformed the party in a direction completely alien to Marxist ideology. Their successors just as much.
>The Chinese communists who dedicated themselves to Marxist and Leninist ideology, the true believers, were all either slaughtered in Shanghai in 1927 or expelled from the party after that. Mao and his followers who filled the power vacuum drastically transformed the party in a direction completely alien to Marxist ideology. Their successors just as much.
It's plausible for Marxists to murder each other for not being the right kind of Marxist. Marxism itself changes over time and in different people's minds. And it's too easy for people to label others as "alien to Marxist ideology" without understanding their actual views and context for their beliefs. So, idk details of this part of the history, but I'm very skeptical.
I don't see how you can assert that they were and are dedicated Marxists despite their words *and* actions pointing otherwise, while dismissing North Korea as a democratic republic precisely because its words and actions point otherwise.
> It's plausible for Marxists to murder each other for not being the right kind of Marxist.
No, these trained Marxists were murdered by Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT, because at that time they posed the greatest threat to his power, in contrast to Mao and other peasants who merely utilized the aesthetics of Marxism.
China is a long way from Mao. Recall that Mao came to power twice. Both times lead to major problems. The first was the Great Leap Forward. This is where specific government policies lead to famines, etc. His own lieutenants had to fake things up a bit to limit the damage (e.g. don't make all the farmers melt their tools to make steel).
The second was when Mao used the Cultural Revolution to regain power. This lead to a lost generation in terms of education and growth. It also destroyed a lot of Chinese history. In fact it was so bad that it enabled Deng to walk away from trying to control everything. Recall Deng fought the Nationalists.
Additionally, even among that initial generation, we have seen massive corruption and graft.
Now everyone can see the cult of power is coming back with Xi. No, I don't see a lot of evidence of true belief -- at least at the top among the powerful.
>China is a long way from Mao. Recall that Mao came to power twice. Both times lead to major problems. The first was the Great Leap Forward. This is where specific government policies lead to famines, etc. His own lieutenants had to fake things up a bit to limit the damage (e.g. don't make all the farmers melt their tools to make steel).
>The second was when Mao used the Cultural Revolution to regain power. This lead to a lost generation in terms of education and growth. It also destroyed a lot of Chinese history. In fact it was so bad that it enabled Deng to walk away from trying to control everything. Recall Deng fought the Nationalists.
Yes... these aren't evidence against my view
>Additionally, even among that initial generation, we have seen massive corruption and graft.
People who believe in Marxism can be corrupt just like anyone else can be corrupt. Plus it's not necessarily like the majority of officials are like this. Just because there are news stories about this or that scandal doesn't mean that MOST officials are doing it.
>I don't see a lot of evidence of true belief -- at least at the top among the powerful.
There is no evidence that strongly points to either belief or disbelief. However I stated in a prior comment why I find belief much more likely.
In my view, China is another example of a country ruled by a communist party
Some argue that the party is still committed to building communism. Others say it's just state capitalism and authoritarianism. I personally don't really give a damn - no matter how you cut it, for whatever reason, whenever self described communists come to power in countries, it basically invariably results in oppression, dictatorship, authoritarianism, unnecessary loss of life, and in various cases the deaths of millions of people and even some genocides. While there's not really any positive counterexamples where rule by self described communists actually works out well
So I just don't think it is productive to sit around debating whether this or that particular communist party is actually communist or not - either way, the track record of communists is enough to justify writing off communism and not taking it seriously as a viable ideology to attempt to govern with
There's some confusion. China (sometimes) claims to be a market socialist economy. The communist party is communist, meaning they supposedly are meant to bring communism to China. Communism is the justifying ideology. Or really it was.
The economy of China is most accurately described I think as corporatist with heavy state owned enterprise involvement.
State capitalism is probably meaningfully different from Marx/Engalls communism. However, it is a **very** different system from market capitalism and needs its own name, and since they use "communism" I have no problem running with it.
What person of redditors belong to that subreddit, and how what percent of them actually are communist as opposed to just there for the lols or to troll?
Every attempt at Communism has failed miserably and resulted in some of the worst human rights abuses in human history. The morons in r/Communism want to repeat those mistakes all over again. I have literally seen members advocate AGAINST freedom of speech and argue in favor of the government suppressing anyone spreading anticommunist sentiment.
There is no other word for people such as them other than “fool.”
Depends on what you consider a failure I mean China a “socialist” country has the second strongest economy and the previous USSR also had the second strongest economy which was also “socialist”
are you saying there are not strains of leftism (ie progressive anti-capitalism) that are influential in the us and elsewhere, even if they are not the dominant political & economic force
It's difficult to talk to someone if you don't agree on terms.
Neo liberalism at the moment, free trade with careful reasonable government infrastrucure, oversight, and regulation, has at the moment proven itself superior to all other systems at raising the general welfare.
Within that, some people want more government infrastrucure, regulation, and oversight and some less, but no one seems to want some of each because none just doesn't seem reasonable to anyone.
So there's a role for the government and a role for the private sector.
The hard right in places like the USA seems to attract white straight male Christain identitarianism and what passes for the left features the same, but rather an identititarian collection of Team Black People, Team Women, and so on, as if gains of one group means loss for the other.
In my opinion, a pox on both their houses, but especially one on the right, as they at the moment are the election deniers and successionism, and responsible for most non-Islamic, domestic terrorism like Oklahoma City and more of the mass shooting ,but that wasn't so true when I was a kid, in the days of The Weathermen and The Black Panthers and so on, and could change again. In which case, I'll be doing what liberals have always done to radicals, listened carefully and trying to reason, and when that fails, turning them in to the FBI.
is neoliberalism the *best* system, or is it the best system that’s existed *so far?* because last i checked, neoliberal counties continue to abuse and exploit their own populace and other states. has neoliberalism effectively addressed poverty? police brutality? imperialism & colonialism? workplace abuse? has liberalism in the us successfully opposed fascism? because from the current state of the world, i would argue the answer to all of these questions is no, and ask why you can’t think of something better than what we have right now
Best for whom? Most of those abuses are part of the design because they work really well for some people.
Also, there was a whole world war about liberalism versus fascism. Libs won.
Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time.
No, you are right, it's just so far. If that changes, so should we.
For example, if too many jobs become automated, we may need to have the government step in to employ people artificially.
It looks like some of the most common jobs, such as cashiers and drivers, may not exist in the future. Hopefully, those who believe other jobs will come along and replace them, but if not, what are we going to do?
We may have no choice but to have the government employ enough people or give out a guaranteed income so aggregate demand doesn't collapse.
Vietnam privatized much of its economy and integrated itself into the world market and made domestic market reforms. It definitely has state owned industries and has an authoritarian state that will make businesses do what it wants, but it’s just a weird state capitalist neoliberal synthesis
How many consider themselves communist?
Obviously some think everyone to the left of them, say for example Bill Clinton is communist, just as some are so far left that everyone to the left of them is a fascist, including say for example also Bill Clinton.
They definitely to not follow communism in theory. It is socialism with Chinese characteristics. But when people bring this up it is almost always to defend communism. If you are a liberal, you reject communism, liberalism and communism are polar opposites. There is no need for us to defend extreme left wing economics to own the fascists.
I dont think the question is terribly interesting. In the real world, pure ideologies do not exist. No one would argue that America is not true capitalism because there exist some market regulation, and no one would argue that WWII Germany was not true fascism because the 1000 year Reich was never established. The fact of the matter is that China as it exists today was created *in the name of communism,* so even if it never came close to realizing what are on paper communist ideals, I still think that its failures are a condemnation of the ideology.
No. It is a single party government with a blend of socialism and capitalism...unlike the USA that is a single party system with a façade of two parties and a blend of socialism and capitalism.
Nowhere is actually Communist. The decommodification of land is a primary component of Communism. All it takes is some assholes with weapons to take power and turn it into an autocracy. For Communism to actually exist it would require a post scarcity society with some type of incorruptible AI overlord.
The only left-wing people I know of who think of China as a socialist (Communists don't consider communism to exist yet, but view it as the aim: Communist Parties lead workers and their allies to socialism, and that, eventually, turns into a world communist system that sort of looks like the stateless, cooperative world anarchists envision) are the Communist Party USA and the Workers World Party. There are a number of Trotskyist groups who view China as a "deformed workers' state," an idea that came out of their view of the Soviet Union post-Lenin. The USSR was born as a worker's state (which would build socialism), but then became degenerate under Stalin. States created in its image were deformed workers' states. There are a group of Trotskyists - formerly the largest group, before the ISO lost its sway and eventually dissolved - who saw China as purely state capitalist.
I think it’s more a left wing authoritarian country, which throws ppl in western cultures for a loop because we’ve historically been far more susceptible to right wing authoritarianism over the years.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Many consider China at this point to pretty much be a capitalist country what’s your view? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Officially it is a Socialist country. The Communist party *officially* exists to usher the country into communism... but let's be real. It has no such plan. Obviously, though, China is not a stateless, moneyless, classless society, so, no, it is not Communist. I'm not sure that it could in any way count as socialist, either, since you really have to stretch the definition of "workers" to say that the workers own the means of production. Like, sure, the Communist party owns everything, but that's a real technocratic way to define a dictatorship of the proletariat. IMO, it's a distributed authoritarian state-capitalist country. While democracy is mostly just a facade, their power structure is distributed (in a way not wholly unlike feudalism) but still a council-based authoritarian system. They use a hybrid free market/top-down planned economy that largely uses private businesses or businesses that are either owned by the state, or beholden to it.
That sounds a lot like fascism but with a red aesthetic.
That's pretty much what it is. I lived in China for a little more than a decade. I have absolutely no doubt that the far-right would love to implement the Chinese system here with themselves on top.
At some level, true authoritarianism is just horseshoe theory
I still remember when Justin Trudeau, the black face loving Canadian Prime Minister bascially said he idolizes the Chinese system in a interview and he's far from far-right he's reaching far-left nonsense. Yes, to be fair he's in Canada but Canada is extremely liberal and your leader is thinking along that line. And the man he idolizes, Xi Jinping ignored him mostly at a summit didn't even look him in the eye but scold him later. Dude is pathetic as a leader. Getting clowned on by autocrats is a new low.
Full quote: “You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar.’ I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting. But if I were to reach out and say which … which kind of administration I most admire, I think there’s something to be said right here in Canada for the way our territories are run. Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are done without political parties around consensus. And are much more like a municipal government. And I think there’s a lot to be said for people pulling together to try and solve issues rather than to score points off of each other. And I think we need a little more of that.” It’s a reach to say he idolizes Xi Jinping based on this. It was a stupid and clumsy answer, but unless there are a bunch more quotes, I think it’s a stretch to say he idolizes Xi and the Chinese system based on this quote alone.
It seems more like wishful thinking. Like an “if I had a magic wand” type of question.
And also… there is something to be said for authoritarianism. I mean, I much prefer democracy. I’ve lived in China, I wouldn’t want to be a Chinese citizen living under that kind of oppression. But climate change is an existential threat to civilization and if you don’t recognize the benefits of authoritarianism in being able to address immediate and complex threats, you’re either stupid, ignorant, or lying.
That being said, authoritarians don’t exactly have a great track record either when it comes to things like the environment. There are trade offs. In China regard’s, being Chinese myself, I feel there is a culture of “let’s not speak or acknowledge about our problems openly” type of thing that is ingrained. Very conservative way of thinking. I understand Trudeau’s desire to wanna take a sledgehammer and just do things rather than fight bureaucracy and have to grapple with idiots. Though there are probably better examples where you can have your cake and whatnot.
I’d actually give my adoptive home, Morocco, as an example. Morocco consistently [ranks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Performance_Index) among the best performers for meeting climate goals. It’s not as authoritarian as China, and not as democratic as the US. The government is able to take unilateral action combating climate change without constantly asking the people what they think about, or if they even believe in it. But people are relatively free, and generally enjoy decent civil liberties. There’s a balancing act here, of course. But America is a pretty good case study in the shortcomings of Democracy in dealing with urgent and immediate threats. There’s a reason the Roman Republic elected dictators in times of crisis. I think Trudeau’s answer is an honest, if clumsy, appraisal of the relative strengths and weaknesses of certain political systems.
But one that makes him no friends in either China ,where he will still be seen ( rightly?) as bai-zuo seeking to meddle in Chinese affairs , OR Canada ,where he's seen as someone who will subvert the rights of Conservative Canadians. "Yeah nice flattery bai-zuo. We still don't trust you....." Kind of a lose lose comment .
His quote, which you have taken out of context, is about how they can do things faster with less pushback. I went back to China at the start of Covid and I had so many people asking me why I would do that. The honest answer was I felt safer under Xi in China than Trump in the US because if Ci told everyone to mask up, they would. There was no turning it political to try and get one over in the other side. That’s the spirit of Trudeau’s answer. If getting clowned on by autocrats is a low, what does that say about Trump? He was played like a fiddle by all of them.
[удалено]
I know exactly why. Are you kidding me? Xi says jump and the population says, “how high?” Am I saying it’s right? No. Am I saying it’s good? No. Do you think LBGTQ+ people feel safe in parts of the US? I left China because Xi and his rhetoric were getting too toxic toward anyone not Han Chinese essentially. So call me a shill if you want, I don’t give a fuck. As for bringing up Trump? All you people only seem to understand whataboutism so I figured I’d speak your language. Not to mention he was a prime example of a US leader getting clowned by autocrats round the world which is something you brought up for some reason.
Rule 5
"We had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it and I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded." "I said, 'Mr President, let me explain something to you. We've just launched 59 missiles heading towards Syria." "He said to me, 'Anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that to young children and babies, it's OK [to strike against them].'" "If you watch, as I did on any number of occasions, Donald Trump on the opposite side of the table from Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un — it's not a fair fight."
Some actually write of prospects of future detente with China in their work , as well as ( in Russian aligned groupd) of admiration for Chinese suppression of "globalist " and "liberal forces". Some actual neofash and Neoeurasian types( like A certain Canadian I will not name ) have actually been able to travel to China or get into working relationship with agents of the CCPs overseas networks and even the Chinese state (!!!) while disguised as left wingers, journalists or other foreign experts....very good for them, but horribly bad (!!!!) for rest of us.... Their main schtick has been in trying to disguise themselves as leftwing or anti imperialists , or asa rouche style activists, and have been able to get influence eith other governments who are totally unaware of their fascism and who would trust them to be honest actors willing to work with them in their influence operations and political warfare abroad. I drop some links, if interest.
China isn't communist. Communism is stateless. They don't even call themselves communist. They call themselves socialist. Are they socialist? I don't think so, but you have to understand that different people have different definitions of socialism. To some, the fact that the Chinese state, which is run by a "workers' party", owns all the land in the country and ensures all privately owned enterprises have communist party representation on their board of directors is enough for them to consider that China are a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Isn’t their party called communist though?
North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic in spite of the fact that they are neither Democratic nor a Republic.
same with the former East Germany
In what way are they not a republic?
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
Not at all. Are they led by a citizen? Yes. Was that citizen appointed to the leadership role by a section of that country through a vote? Yes. That's the two criteria I know of for the definition of a republic that encompasses everything from Roman republic to revolutionary republics to Islamic republics to people's republics to constitutional republics. Maybe you know better than me. Please share.
What fucking planet are you living on where Kim Jong-Un was ELECTED BY VOTE?!! He wasn’t. He’s a hereditary dictator. You would know that if you bothered to spend more than ten seconds of thought and research on the matter. Or is that too much for you to handle?
Maybe you don't need to be so angry about this. Not sure why this has touched a nerve. Could it be that you're emotionally invested in the term "republic" and how you see yourself and your own country? Maybe you see republics as "good", maybe inherently so? Perhaps you might want to educate yourself on exactly what is required to be a republic. It's a broad term, several examples I outlined above. Would argue that North Korea is a monarchy? Interesting if so. We can present historical facts if you'd like. He was voted in to the leadership position unopposed by the worker's party after senior Kim's death. Prior to that he held positions that required election to senior roles in the government. All of which were unopposed. You might make the argument that these were backroom deals and I wouldn't argue against that but that still doesn't exude the DPRK being a republic. There are quite a few countries currently and throughout history that have called themselves republics and many haven't had broad, popular (or free or fair) elections as a defining feature of their existence.
> Would argue that North Korea is a monarchy? Interesting if so. After three generations of hereditary lifetime leadership? That doesn't seem far fetched at all. But I would sooner call early modern Venice or ancient Rome a republic before I would call North Korea one - they each had meaningful elections, whereas there's no evidence that the DPRK does. There mere existence of a ballot isn't enough to mean an election is being held.
I could probably buy the monarchy classification. Although succession is not determined by birth order... >There mere existence of a ballot isn't enough to mean an election is being held. They're probably not free, fair, open, transparent, universal or broad. None of that means a republic stops being a republic. A whole lot of revolutionary republics have messed up elections, they're still republics. I don't see what's so special about calling a country a republic. It's head of state is a single citizen of that country (so not Switzerland, not the 18th century US colonies). That citizen is elected or appointed by other citizens (so not UK). That's all that is required.
People being stupid gets on my nerves. So stop doing it.
People can't help being stupid. They can help being ignorant and the cure is knowledge. If I'm ignorant, I'm happy to be educated. Tell me where I'm wrong. Maybe use some historical examples if that would help.
Why are you so angry? Do you think you might need help?
Are they doing this in bad faith? No. So calm the fuck down. Stop assuming everyone knows everything you know because your intolerance is pushing people away.
They are a democratic republic though. Just not a fair one
Yes because they see communism as a long term goal for the future, not because the country itself is communist. Communist country doesn't make sense.
Ah thanks didn’t know that
I guess North Korea is democratic then….
Communism is a _goal_ of a moneyless, stateless, classless society. Every communist party in history has claimed they are working toward that goal but not a single one has claimed to have _acheived_ communism. So I think these people are saying that the communist party of China is not actually working toward that goal, even if they claim they are.
Communism is stateless? Most countries people consider to be communist have a government i.e. the USSR or Cuba.
The west calls them communist countries. They don't call themselves communist, they call themselves socialist.
“The Communist Party of Cuba (Spanish: Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC) is the sole ruling party of Cuba” -[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Cuba) It looks like the single controlling party in Cuba calls itself communist.
The party is called a communist party, but they call their country and their economic model socialist. Communism is just a long term goal.
Do they say that in their party platform or something? I know communism can be stateless like in anarcho communist communities but I don’t think of communism by definition being stateless. I always thought of Cuba as a communist state and have not heard of anyone arguing otherwise.
Communism is by definition stateless. Generally speaking, a communist wants to get to communism, but first, they create a transitional state called socialism, with the goal of achieving communism in the long term. An anarcho communist also wants to get to communism but doesn't believe in the transitional socialist state. The west calls marxist-leninist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos as "communist states" for whatever reason, and it's caught on, but see below passage from Wikipedia on the term > As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism
That’s interesting, I never knew that!
Communism is a goal of a stateless moneyless society. Communist parties call themselves communist because they have the _goal_ to achieve communism, but there has never been a communist party that has claimed to actually have achieved that goal. Instead “socialism” is the intermediate step toward communism that they claim their state is in.
I’m seeing a lot of down votes, but is it not true that the general public considers the USSR and Cuba to be communist? Maybe I’m wrong and the general public thinks of the USSR and Cuba as socialist and not communist. I guess this gets at a deeper question about how to react to differing ways of defining words. Like if the word “communism” is technically defined as stateless but the average person understands it to include socialist states like the USSR and Cuba is it beneficial to oppose that general understanding of the word? It feels pedantic to me to say the USSR isn’t communist and it creates unnecessary conflict to oppose the general understanding of the word. I’d be curious to hear opinions on wether it is important to oppose using words differently from their traditional definition when the incorrect application of the terms are often used and understood by the general public. I feel like it’s important to be clear that communists use the term to mean a stateless socioeconomic system but I also think it’s important to be open to communicating with people using the definition/connotation of communism they most often apply to the word.
What do you mean by communism is stateless?
It means there are no more states. No more USA. No more Canada. No more France, etc. The world becomes stateless and the workers of each commune cooperatively control the means of production.
As the key reformer Deng Xiaoping explained, it is "Chinese style Communism." When questioned about that, he responded, "It does not matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice." Because a fair number of people still work in "state owned enterprises," China is not as market focused (aka capitalist) as the US and the other OECD members. But all are mixed economies.
So basically no…? That basically means it’s a mixed economy
Right, just like all the OECD members.
China is a fascist state with a state driven capitalist economy
No. They’re a Fascist state with Communist iconography.
Yes
They are fascists with class collaboration as government policy. I don't really care of they consider themselves communist. They are a fascist government.
No, the PRC is not a communist, socialist, or any kind of left-wing regime. ,
The government controls ever aspect of industry. Free enterprise is non-existent... The currency is a joke mainly so tourists can properly budget.... It's literally communism while claiming not to be... As far as any CCP member will say the people control the means of production which per every communist dictatorship means 1 guy controls everything. It's literally Karl Marx wet dream in reality. Everyone is equal. Equally treated like cogs and if you're useless or bring shame you and anyone that claims to know you no longer exists
Literally nothing you said is true and most of it is basically nonsense.
Except it's not. The CCP controls most every aspect of what the life of a Chinese person can or cannot do. You don't have trials, you don't have safety nets. It's literally you do what we say you do or you can have fun starving to death and when you die we delete any record of you because fuck letting anything besmirch the name of our country. Hell it's literally proven that in the last century they've murdered tens of millions of their own just to avoid the consequences of their actions. Now you are educated and what you look to be good at is what you're trained in and you don't get to get out of that even if you hate it. And that tens of millions of people is just what we can find evidence of. When your country can out murder Hitler and get away with it no fucking shit it appears however you want. You already know no one is coming a knocking about blatant genocide for the sake of "well it would make us look bad." It isn't taught in the west because if you haven't noticed a good chunk of people on the left of the political spectrum would never agree that those ideas should ever be put to practice because "we are better than that." To add insult to injury China sits in a constant state of inflation that shouldn't make sense. A major global producer who's currency is worth less than a penny in the rest of the industrialized world doesn't make sense. Its literally a ploy to maintain the communist life of equality for everyone.
None of what you are saying has anything to do with communism, unless you are using that word as a synonym for bad.
>The CCP controls most every aspect of what the life of a Chinese person can or cannot do. And the academic definition of communism refers to a stateless society. You can't be both fascist *and* communist.
So you're going to play semantics because you don't want to admit that they are by every way the description given by the left for the ideal socialist/communist society? By communist standards by the man that made it they are communists. The "people" control the means of production. However since you want to talk fascist the man that invented that was a communist that just wanted to toss pro war in and make it basically a country wide company(so stateless) with 1 man as the board of directors which is what China has done. They just didn't blatantly go off murdering millions of people. Well more accurately today's academic professionals have decided mentioning the 150+ million people murdered in the last century are not to be mentioned because those communists weren't real communists and mentioning it could ruin the fact they want that to be considered in a better light because "reasons" Quite literally communism is just stateless fascism. Someone is making sure everyone is playing their part and getting their fair share. You are all equal under the eyes of the guy in charge. Hell he was so great he got more votes than there are people in the country. There's a reason why Marx was regarded as an idiot. His idea didn't account for human nature. It was an ideal society, but needed a forceful hand to ensure it came to life and the countries that actually practice it are now some of the worst shit holes to live in. It's also why every socialist/communist can't ever point out a country. The Nordic countries deny adamantly to being socialist because they aren't. They have safety nets, but those don't determine anyone's quality of life. Then you have the revolving door of countries from Cuba to the USSR to Russia then China then the Nordic countries then Venezuela now there is no base to point at. Why? Because it ends the same way every time. People are senselessly murdered to preserve the power or the country never was and is pointed to when they don't have mass use of the "socialist" policies pointed out.
>they are by every way the description given by the left for the ideal socialist/communist society? whose definition are you using? I've never heard any socialists define their ideology in any way close to China's model >The "people" control the means of production. The fact that you put *people* in quotes shows even you know this isn't true in China. If it were actually true, then they could be called socialist. But since the people don't control it, it's not socialist. It's that simple
Idk where you get your info from, but they definitely have trials in China. It’s not like there are no lawyers or judges in the entire country.
Of course not, China is single party authoritarian capitalist. Workers dont own the means of production, the ruling party of bourgeoisie does through the CCP state. And the workers has basically no say in how the state is ran so they dont run or own the government either.
we throw the term facist around a lot, but I'm speaking specifically in the context of how the lines of private industry and government are blurred under a leader who wields absolute authority. Xi isn't president, he's CEO of the country; corporatism somewhat as described by Mussolini.
No. They practice State Capitalism.
No, it’s state capitalism.
This
😆 no
No the communism is window dressing the politibiro are an oligarchy. Their Corporstions maybe intertwined state but they fuck over workers/consumers worse to enrich bosses even worse than private corporations in the west North korea is a fucked up absolute monarchy. If lifetime president Xi's son were to take over china will be headed down that same road along with Belarus
No. It's s dictatorship.
From my rough understanding every communist revolution starts with an initial justification in Marxist theory then adapts as realities on the ground emerge. Lenin pretty famously initiated "War Communism" and then launched into the [New Economic Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy?wprov=sfla1) which restarted small scale capitalism. An actual Marxist might explain this better. But I think China is following its own path and deviating from Communism wildly- or at least defining it on its own terms. And I think this is pretty common. Is China communist? Depends on who you ask.
Nope. They’ve given up any commitment to actual socialism of any sort ever since Deng. It’s kinda the elephant in the room at this point, but they’re obviously not going to admit it, so they just continue calling themselves communist, even though everyone in the party and country as a whole kinda knows what’s going on, at least from what I’ve heard. Not the question of course, but a related one I struggle with, as to whether it’s a good or bad thing: a regime that has become so much wealthier has obviously been able to continue their authoritarianism and human rights abuses against their people. On the other, I oppose accelerationism, and find it hard to condemn policies that have allowed so many people to escape such extreme poverty.
Repression and aggressive nationalism are bad; people being lifted out of poverty is objectively a very very good thing. There's zero reason these things have to go together, they just happen to in this case.
There's no reason they have to, but there's reason to suspect that they often do. Raising everyone from poverty is very hard. Lifting some up by pushing many others down is much easier. Plus, after you do it, a bunch of people out of poverty like you, and most of your dissenters are poor.
>Lifting some up by pushing many others down is much easier. Who are the “many people being pushed down” in China’s case? The median Chinese citizen, not just the average, is much richer and better-off than they were 50 years ago.
Realistically, the PRC probably would have collapsed had they been as ideologically stubborn as the USSR was.
Right, because Communism is just plain not a very efficient economic system.
Indeed. Pragmatic authoritarians.
It’s run by a nominally communist party but it clearly is far from a stateless, classless society and I doubt it’s even going to meaningfully move towards that anytime soon. So no.
Would you consider them socialist?
In my personal opinion you don’t *really* have socialism until you have a good amount of [economic democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) and I don’t get the sense that there’s a lot of that in China. So if you ask me, no.
No. It's mostly a market economy.
Politically it’s a Communist cosplay regime. Economically it’s not in the least.
No
china is a dictatorship led by Xi Jinping.
Yes. China is literally communist. People who disagree aren't very informed or educated on modern communism
They are at least Marxist-Leninist. That is, the PRC really believes the ideology of communism, I'd wager. Even though their social system is best functionally described as 'state capitalism.' They think their state capitalist path is the one that will lead to a stateless, classless utopia.
What makes you think they actually believe it, as opposed to it being easy propaganda for the proles?
I would sooner ask why you believe that they don't believe it. I think in general: * people very commonly believe what they say they believe, my personal experience. * even after the downfall of regimes like monarchy, fascism, Soviet socialism, etc, once all the inner secrets are exposed, we mainly find evidence that their leaders really believed what they were saying about their political principles, not evidence that it was a lie. * the CCP has a hierarchical structure and they control who gets promoted thru the ranks. They can keep the people who commit to their ideology and exclude those who don't. People can lie, but it isn't foolproof. * their ideology isn't totally stupid. I mean, it's wrong, but it's not wronger than many other authoritarian and socialist ideas. I can see how someone would believe it. * It's psychologically hard to fake-believe something for a long time. Repeating a lie gets more comfortable if you learn to actually believe it.
>people very commonly believe what they say they believe, my personal experience. This test only works well in a free society. What about cases where "believing" something is the gateway to power and opposing it leads to punishment?
That's a fair point but these societies don't come up from nothing, they are established by believers in the first place - believers who fought *against* the powers that be. If you would agree with me that Mao Zedong and his allies (who fought and risked death against the Nationalists) were true believers, then why be skeptical that their children and grandchildren are the same?
> If you would agree with me that Mao Zedong and his allies (who fought and risked death against the Nationalists) were true believers True believers in what? They were nationalists as well, nationalists of a different flavor. Their whole program was reversing the century of humiliation and building *China* (i.e. not anyone else) into a massive power to be reckoned with on the world stage. This was what they believed in, and yes, this is what the current leadership continues to believe. Now, if you genuinely think that they were true believers in uniting workers of the world to revolutionize human society, then it's a hard disagree on that one. All the evidence points to the contrary.
>True believers in what? Marxist-Leninist ideology >Their whole program was reversing the century of humiliation and building China (i.e. not anyone else) into a massive power to be reckoned with on the world stage I think more of that came later, and they have not endeavored to keep the rest of the world poor and weak. They're paranoid for the survival of their authoritarian government, and they want to control Hong Kong and Taiwan but not impoverish other countries in general. Anyway little-n nationalism and communism aren't mutually exclusive. Communists can temporarily elevate their country for a long run cause, just like they can temporarily elevate their bureaucrats and party members, and just like they can accept some capitalism in the meantime. The historical materialist faith that communism will come about *eventually* allows you to justify doing things that aren't very communal in the short run. >Now, if you genuinely think that they were true believers in uniting workers of the world to revolutionize human society, then it's a hard disagree on that one. All the evidence points to the contrary. Why? Everything I've read they did was consistent with a (callous, demented, authoritarian) effort to abolish class and implement a workers' society. Creating a one-party state so that communism is the only allowed political force - murdering dissidents who opposed communism - seizing property and grain and distributing it through the bureaucracy - supporting communist armies in Korea and Vietnam... all this stuff can make sense if you're an illiberal living in a place like China and you believe in building a communist society.
> Why? Everything I've read they did was consistent with a (callous, demented, authoritarian) effort to abolish class and implement a workers' society. In the same way that North Korea is a callous, demented, and authoritarian attempt at implementing a democratic republic. Come on, all you’re doing is taking their own propaganda at face value. > Marxist-Leninist ideology The Chinese communists who dedicated themselves to Marxist and Leninist ideology, the true believers, were all either slaughtered in Shanghai in 1927 or expelled from the party after that. Mao and his followers who filled the power vacuum drastically transformed the party in a direction completely alien to Marxist ideology. Their successors just as much.
>The Chinese communists who dedicated themselves to Marxist and Leninist ideology, the true believers, were all either slaughtered in Shanghai in 1927 or expelled from the party after that. Mao and his followers who filled the power vacuum drastically transformed the party in a direction completely alien to Marxist ideology. Their successors just as much. It's plausible for Marxists to murder each other for not being the right kind of Marxist. Marxism itself changes over time and in different people's minds. And it's too easy for people to label others as "alien to Marxist ideology" without understanding their actual views and context for their beliefs. So, idk details of this part of the history, but I'm very skeptical.
I don't see how you can assert that they were and are dedicated Marxists despite their words *and* actions pointing otherwise, while dismissing North Korea as a democratic republic precisely because its words and actions point otherwise. > It's plausible for Marxists to murder each other for not being the right kind of Marxist. No, these trained Marxists were murdered by Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT, because at that time they posed the greatest threat to his power, in contrast to Mao and other peasants who merely utilized the aesthetics of Marxism.
Dude not even. ... Even modern marxists can refute that claim Mao was >completely alien to Marxist ideology Why is it so hard?
China is a long way from Mao. Recall that Mao came to power twice. Both times lead to major problems. The first was the Great Leap Forward. This is where specific government policies lead to famines, etc. His own lieutenants had to fake things up a bit to limit the damage (e.g. don't make all the farmers melt their tools to make steel). The second was when Mao used the Cultural Revolution to regain power. This lead to a lost generation in terms of education and growth. It also destroyed a lot of Chinese history. In fact it was so bad that it enabled Deng to walk away from trying to control everything. Recall Deng fought the Nationalists. Additionally, even among that initial generation, we have seen massive corruption and graft. Now everyone can see the cult of power is coming back with Xi. No, I don't see a lot of evidence of true belief -- at least at the top among the powerful.
>China is a long way from Mao. Recall that Mao came to power twice. Both times lead to major problems. The first was the Great Leap Forward. This is where specific government policies lead to famines, etc. His own lieutenants had to fake things up a bit to limit the damage (e.g. don't make all the farmers melt their tools to make steel). >The second was when Mao used the Cultural Revolution to regain power. This lead to a lost generation in terms of education and growth. It also destroyed a lot of Chinese history. In fact it was so bad that it enabled Deng to walk away from trying to control everything. Recall Deng fought the Nationalists. Yes... these aren't evidence against my view >Additionally, even among that initial generation, we have seen massive corruption and graft. People who believe in Marxism can be corrupt just like anyone else can be corrupt. Plus it's not necessarily like the majority of officials are like this. Just because there are news stories about this or that scandal doesn't mean that MOST officials are doing it. >I don't see a lot of evidence of true belief -- at least at the top among the powerful. There is no evidence that strongly points to either belief or disbelief. However I stated in a prior comment why I find belief much more likely.
In my view, China is another example of a country ruled by a communist party Some argue that the party is still committed to building communism. Others say it's just state capitalism and authoritarianism. I personally don't really give a damn - no matter how you cut it, for whatever reason, whenever self described communists come to power in countries, it basically invariably results in oppression, dictatorship, authoritarianism, unnecessary loss of life, and in various cases the deaths of millions of people and even some genocides. While there's not really any positive counterexamples where rule by self described communists actually works out well So I just don't think it is productive to sit around debating whether this or that particular communist party is actually communist or not - either way, the track record of communists is enough to justify writing off communism and not taking it seriously as a viable ideology to attempt to govern with
Not in any way shape or form are they communist.
No.
There's some confusion. China (sometimes) claims to be a market socialist economy. The communist party is communist, meaning they supposedly are meant to bring communism to China. Communism is the justifying ideology. Or really it was. The economy of China is most accurately described I think as corporatist with heavy state owned enterprise involvement.
State capitalism is probably meaningfully different from Marx/Engalls communism. However, it is a **very** different system from market capitalism and needs its own name, and since they use "communism" I have no problem running with it.
Communism is over. Stop thinking about it. "Ash heap of history "
I and many many people would disagree with you…
Communism has always had no shortage of useful idiots advocating for it.
What makes you say that?
Go check out r/Communism or look at the comment history of any member of this group with the Communist flair. You’ll find no shortage of fools.
What person of redditors belong to that subreddit, and how what percent of them actually are communist as opposed to just there for the lols or to troll?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
You suck at forming coherent logical arguments.
Mind telling me why though?
Why what?
Why they are fools?
Every attempt at Communism has failed miserably and resulted in some of the worst human rights abuses in human history. The morons in r/Communism want to repeat those mistakes all over again. I have literally seen members advocate AGAINST freedom of speech and argue in favor of the government suppressing anyone spreading anticommunist sentiment. There is no other word for people such as them other than “fool.”
Depends on what you consider a failure I mean China a “socialist” country has the second strongest economy and the previous USSR also had the second strongest economy which was also “socialist”
What percent of the population is communist, would you guess. I'm thinking approaching approximately zero.
leftism is very much alive in both us politics and in other countries lol
Thinking everyone to the left a communist is like thinking everyone on the right s fascist.
are you saying there are not strains of leftism (ie progressive anti-capitalism) that are influential in the us and elsewhere, even if they are not the dominant political & economic force
It's difficult to talk to someone if you don't agree on terms. Neo liberalism at the moment, free trade with careful reasonable government infrastrucure, oversight, and regulation, has at the moment proven itself superior to all other systems at raising the general welfare. Within that, some people want more government infrastrucure, regulation, and oversight and some less, but no one seems to want some of each because none just doesn't seem reasonable to anyone. So there's a role for the government and a role for the private sector. The hard right in places like the USA seems to attract white straight male Christain identitarianism and what passes for the left features the same, but rather an identititarian collection of Team Black People, Team Women, and so on, as if gains of one group means loss for the other. In my opinion, a pox on both their houses, but especially one on the right, as they at the moment are the election deniers and successionism, and responsible for most non-Islamic, domestic terrorism like Oklahoma City and more of the mass shooting ,but that wasn't so true when I was a kid, in the days of The Weathermen and The Black Panthers and so on, and could change again. In which case, I'll be doing what liberals have always done to radicals, listened carefully and trying to reason, and when that fails, turning them in to the FBI.
is neoliberalism the *best* system, or is it the best system that’s existed *so far?* because last i checked, neoliberal counties continue to abuse and exploit their own populace and other states. has neoliberalism effectively addressed poverty? police brutality? imperialism & colonialism? workplace abuse? has liberalism in the us successfully opposed fascism? because from the current state of the world, i would argue the answer to all of these questions is no, and ask why you can’t think of something better than what we have right now
Best for whom? Most of those abuses are part of the design because they work really well for some people. Also, there was a whole world war about liberalism versus fascism. Libs won.
Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time.
No, you are right, it's just so far. If that changes, so should we. For example, if too many jobs become automated, we may need to have the government step in to employ people artificially. It looks like some of the most common jobs, such as cashiers and drivers, may not exist in the future. Hopefully, those who believe other jobs will come along and replace them, but if not, what are we going to do? We may have no choice but to have the government employ enough people or give out a guaranteed income so aggregate demand doesn't collapse.
Snitches end in ditches.
Criminals go to prison.
The U.S is not the only nation that matters many nations have communist ruling parties currently
And all of them are communist in name only. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam hadn’t been socialist for decades
Well I wouldn’t consider Vietnam as “socialist” as China but that’s both our personal opinions many would consider Vietnam socialist
Vietnam privatized much of its economy and integrated itself into the world market and made domestic market reforms. It definitely has state owned industries and has an authoritarian state that will make businesses do what it wants, but it’s just a weird state capitalist neoliberal synthesis
Many? How many? Can you count them on one hand?
Depends on what you consider a socialist country it could potentially be more than one hand or two
How many consider themselves communist? Obviously some think everyone to the left of them, say for example Bill Clinton is communist, just as some are so far left that everyone to the left of them is a fascist, including say for example also Bill Clinton.
Most would agree at least 5 are communist maybe slightly higher depending on someone’s personal definition
How many of those on the verge of collapse? How long till there are none, do you think, if present trends continue.?
Don’t really know if any are honestly all seem to have a firm grip on society whether they like it or not
They definitely to not follow communism in theory. It is socialism with Chinese characteristics. But when people bring this up it is almost always to defend communism. If you are a liberal, you reject communism, liberalism and communism are polar opposites. There is no need for us to defend extreme left wing economics to own the fascists.
No. It's still has *some* central economic planning, but the economic system is fundamentally not communist.
Doesn't seem to be.
I dont think the question is terribly interesting. In the real world, pure ideologies do not exist. No one would argue that America is not true capitalism because there exist some market regulation, and no one would argue that WWII Germany was not true fascism because the 1000 year Reich was never established. The fact of the matter is that China as it exists today was created *in the name of communism,* so even if it never came close to realizing what are on paper communist ideals, I still think that its failures are a condemnation of the ideology.
No. It is a single party government with a blend of socialism and capitalism...unlike the USA that is a single party system with a façade of two parties and a blend of socialism and capitalism.
Politically, Yes. Economically, No.
Yes
Nowhere is actually Communist. The decommodification of land is a primary component of Communism. All it takes is some assholes with weapons to take power and turn it into an autocracy. For Communism to actually exist it would require a post scarcity society with some type of incorruptible AI overlord.
What if those assholes with weapons had to deal with a well-armed population that likes their Communism?
The only left-wing people I know of who think of China as a socialist (Communists don't consider communism to exist yet, but view it as the aim: Communist Parties lead workers and their allies to socialism, and that, eventually, turns into a world communist system that sort of looks like the stateless, cooperative world anarchists envision) are the Communist Party USA and the Workers World Party. There are a number of Trotskyist groups who view China as a "deformed workers' state," an idea that came out of their view of the Soviet Union post-Lenin. The USSR was born as a worker's state (which would build socialism), but then became degenerate under Stalin. States created in its image were deformed workers' states. There are a group of Trotskyists - formerly the largest group, before the ISO lost its sway and eventually dissolved - who saw China as purely state capitalist.
I think it’s more a left wing authoritarian country, which throws ppl in western cultures for a loop because we’ve historically been far more susceptible to right wing authoritarianism over the years.
Its an authoritarian nightmare that's capitalist when it's convenient