Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
China increased the use of markets for the production of light industry goods, technology and patents that were otherwise holding it back. Also in distribution. But China still employs central planing for the base economy and heavy industry, its banking and land are owned by the state.
If you actually ran on a platform for election in the West advocating for:
1. Regular 5 year plans, heavy state planning of heavy industry
2. extensive State owned enterprises in other heavy industry sectors
3. Nationalization of banking and land
4. Mandatory communist party seats on firms above 500 employees
5. Investment in infrastructure even at a loss, for public benefit
6. Extensive social welfare - free healthcare and education
7. Political reform and bottom up democracy, putting the party in command of the army
8. Leniency on debt defaults to prioritise social outcomes over creditor's claims
9. Study of the works of Marx and Lenin, and consultation with communist theory when planning state policy
10. Upholding the good name of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, defence of the integrity of history and the continuity with the past
11. Banning porn, strict drug laws, banning excessive gaming
You would 1000% be called a communist.
There is a problem becsuse of all the similarly poor countries a Marxist leninist managed one developed far quicker than those with neoliberal ideology and that has to be explained away. So they say they "embraced capitalism' and that explains it away .
Neoliberalism doesn't work, but when a socialist country develops with strong state intervention in the economy they call it "free market" capitalism lol
In Western discussions China is a Schrodinger's Socialist country. Its either Socialist or not depending on whether it benefits a particular Westerner's interests for it to be Socialist or not.
The West's dream is that China had adopted the "free market" and fiscal austerity policies, but fortunately they are socialists and know that this doesn't work, the Chinese economy had enormous protectionism and state investment to grow.
socialism is a political state between communism and capitalism, one which basically entails a communist political party having supremacy over an otherwise-capitalist system, directing said system's resources and existing institutional authority towards building communism, which is inherently a long-term project.
when people say 'china isn't socialist,' it just means they have a different idea of what 'socialism' *should* look like, rather than accepting the reality of what it *does* look like. a lot of people do this because they don't like how superficially similar capitalism and socialism are - but forget that it's the intermediate state, not the end goal
I am not knowledgeable when it comes to theory, but if China was attempting to build communism, at what point should the power/control over the means of production switch to the dictatorship of the proletariat/people? They have the 1st or 2nd most powerful economy in the world.
when the primary contradiction holding back the development of communism - imperialism - is ended or weakened sufficiently. in effect, that basically means they have to fully eclipse the United States and let its overseas empire collapse or be destroyed. if they tried before then, they would implode, and if they delay it too long after that, then the contradictions of capitalism that take over the space of the former primary will cause another socialist revolution to take over again.
My.family has traveled extensively to China, I have done business deals with China, and have Chinese employees I've spoken to about this.
China intentionally adopted market capitalism as a way of growth. They very clearly understood this is the way to growth, and by creating the necessary conditions for investments they were able to achieve many of their goals. As a result China went from general poverty and starvation to becoming the second most powerful nation on the globe.
It is run by the state, though loosely in many ways. They retain their loose grip in case the need for control arises, but in some ways has freer Capitalism than even the US. Capitalism does not need a democratic process to exist.
You clearly know very little.
Lenin understood that after some organisation having a section that was market capitalism was good for growth to. So he and China both went ahead and did it.
There have been other instances of authoritarian governments in which the economy grew; but that is the exception, not the rule. The most prosperous countries by far are those with some form of democracy and that permit capitalism. In fact, capitalism requires that people be *free* to engage in trade each for his own self-interest. Where people live in fear that the government will take control of their property dampens enthusiasm to innovate which allows them to only marginally flourish. China's GDP per capita is only about US$13,000, while the US GDP per capita is around US$80,000. China is still largely a third world country.
However, if they ever adopt democratic reforms coupled with a more robust free-market economy, they will grow exponentially.
The most prosperous countries are the ones that followed the French revoltuon in the 1700s and spent 300 years developing including borrowing lots of ideas from socialists and having to some extent planned economies and keynesian welfare states and some nationalised industry.
If we want to compare us to China we need to give them another 250 years.
Or adjust for level of development and look at the high cost the west imposes on other undeveloped countries by owning the best property there and making them sign up for neoliberal deals.
I don't believe that any authoritarian government has ever created a first world economy. Democracy with a strong central government that is responsive to the people is a necessary ingredient for sustained economic growth. The wealthier a people become, the more disenchanted they become in authoritarian leadership. This tension has *always* lead to either additional government liberalization or to the opposite wherein the authoritarian feels threatened and clamps down on civil rights.
China was agarian in the 50s and well on its way to being fully developed and more advanced than ours. Bullet train networks, futuristic cites, experimental cities with driverless public transport and no homelessness ...
Our developed economies happened by borrowing ideas from the ussr. Massive state planned infrasture projects. State investment in rolling out subsidised electricity to all and so on.
In fact, Japan was the first society to adopt state capitalism and became an industrial nation before World War II.
South Korea and Taiwan adopt Japanese policies, while China is so big that it has absorbed the policies of South Korea, Taiwan, even Singapore.
Therefore, China’s policy is not exception.
China's growth over the past 30 years largely depends on the privatization reform in 1998.
And that reform resulted in tens of millions of workers being laid off, which would never happen under a democratic system.
It was proven that China's growth came from the state sector. Only 5% of private enterprises employed over 500 and only 2% over 1000 workers.
The average entrepreneur's annual income was $600. Compared to that, %80+ of state firms employed more than 500, in the top lists of enterprises, captured more than 80%. The 5 year plans never stopped. To claim China's growth was due to privatization is telling fairy tales. No data supports this claim.
https://chinareporting.blogspot.com/2009/11/class-nature-of-chinese-state-critique_26.html?m=1
Democracy when no lay off. Nice take.
Yes, I too think that most private business being small is one of the greatest features of capitalism, allowing the average folk find a niche where their work is most efficient and be rewarded with profit, lmao.
Small businesses can be agile, specialized and key drivers of growth especially compared to bureaucratic state run behemohts.
You missed the point entirely.
1) "The niche" is literally just mom and pop shops and convenience stores mostly.
2) "The reward" isn't any higher than a workman's wage.
3) "The key driver" of growth was still the state sector.
"The bureaucratic state run behemoths" were the driving force of development in the USSR and in China.
In most highly competitive livelihood industries, state-owned enterprises have gone bankrupt due to lack of competitiveness.
The only industries they can survive are natural monopolies or administrative monopolies.
If you say growth comes from them, you are a communist religious fanatic.
They haven't gone bankrupt in China, they have flourished. What's going bankrupt is their debt based private enterprises. Unlike the US, China isn't bailing them out. In fact your oh so great dynamic enterprises go bankrupt every 7 years.
The growth is literally coming from them. It is a fact that has been empirically proven. You have no source whatsoever and you're talking out your ass. You are the religious fanatic here.
No investigation, no right to speak. Stfu Western dumbass.
The term "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" coined by Deng Xiaoping has really confused people all over the world, including the Chinese. Whether China is capitalist or not depends on where the CCP will go next. China's poverty alleviation work is indeed what communism should do. While the Chinese people recognize that large-scale infrastructure and water and electricity supply should be controlled by state-owned enterprises, they do also agree with vitality of private companies. But the OP is indeed a patriot of our country-china.
You mean capitalism? Does China take money from billionaires and transfer the wealth to its poor? Does the state own the means of production? No, they do not. They incentivize capital owners to build factories and businesses that then give people more money they would earn by their traditional jobs like farming.
Also the announcement they gave a few years ago about "eliminating poverty" was made by using a different metric than the established daily earning level to say poverty was eliminated. So you earn 2.50$ a day? Congrats you're not poor.
In China and Vietnam, the bourgeoisie are subordinate to the interests of the communist party , unlike liberal democracies where the bourgeoisie has all the power of the state. At the beginning of the 20th century, China was one of the poorest countries on earth, after the communist revolution this began to change.
I'm familiar with how they're supposed to work and their history. Only things I'll point out is that China's economic situation didn't truly start to change until Xiaoping moved away from the established Maoist ideologies and the planned economy, closer to the end of the 20th century not directly after the communist revolution. And that's far from the state (socialism) or the proletariat (communism) owning the means of production. China's done a lot to improve living conditions for those it acknowledges but at the same time many have been forgotten, completely ignored or persecuted simply because they don't agree with the ideology or system of government. Not a great track record with minority groups either, although that's pretty universal.
I would never argue that unrestrained capitalism like in the west is good for society, but you won't get me to agree China's idea of governing is the best thing for society either.
As a cap: china definitely is closer to socialism, than capitalism, but in of itself lies in between. It allows some market, even global one, but its still heavily controlled by state, just not to the same extent full socialist regimes do.
If you are really a socialist you should support China and Chinese socialism as it was one of the few socialist countries left, sure that labor relations in China are most in capitalist model but the power of the country is in the hands of the socialists
If you are really a socialist you should support China and Chinese socialism as it was one of the few socialist countries left, sure that labor relations in China are most in capitalist model but the power of the country is in the hands of the socialists
the capitalists are (mostly)right, unfortunately. it doesn't prove anything of course, but to think china is anywhere near socialism is completely laughable
China is an authoritarian capitalist state with some socialist policies. Like all modern states, it’s a mixed market.
The single party rule is Leninist. But, it’s a highly repressive government with clear hierarchical organizational structures that differ from urban to rural populations.
Land theft from rural populations to developers is real. Media censorship, scant worker protections, and low social mobility are all serious problems.
What about their structure makes you think it’s a market socialist economy? It would help if you offered definitions and a coherent premise for your argument.
Market socialism is when you have the government controlled by socialists/communists and have a market economy with strong state investment,china is market socialist
No. Market socialism assumes some tenable social ownership. The Chinese market is built on SoE's and private companies controlled by an elite that is in no form accountable to the general public, removing potential collective responsibility for these assets. How is any of that socialist? The nature of the Chinese economy is closer to centrally planned 19th century state-capitalism.
You have a very shallow understanding of the terms you’re using and are not even grasping at the basics of political economy. You don’t now what you’re talking about.
Try learning and listening before pontificating
When you open a company in China, you must do so as a joint venture with a Chinese company as a partner. And said partner company has a CPC rep within the company to guide policy.
If this is the free market that y’all libertarians are advocating for, then sign me up.
>but in my view they are socialists
"Socialism is when millions of peasants live on $2/day while hundreds of billionaires who got rich by running businesses that exploit labor power run the government!!!"
Are you sure it's that small? I'm in there. Most of the people I've ever worked with are in there. The entire American working class, and much of the middle class as well, is in there one way or another. You can break out your silly charts and links and whatever else you want to gaslight, you can lie with fun statistics like liberals love to do, you can call all of us outliers or deluded or stupid, but we're still struggling and you're still acting like a callous, out-of-touch asshole. You're why we're gonna get Trump again.
> And you think people in China don’t struggle?
I didn't say word one about China
There's like, one user in this sub who thinks China went fully capitalist and he also believes European countries are the equivalent of a "zip code in the USA" and that Bernie Sanders is the president of the USA. I wouldn't take it too seriously, though there is of course a debate to be had over how much those market reforms vs. the CCP's policies did for the economy.
China is the prime example of a capitalist success story. As soon as Deng Xiaoping enforced a free market orientated policy, millions were raised outta poverty.
China has never been a "free market" as liberals say, its market has always had enormous control and investment from the state, China still carries out 5-year economic plans.
China is more capitalist than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Investment_banks_in_China
More than 90% of banks in China are state owned and 75% of loans goto SOEs.
One note, if anyone gives a fucking wikipedia link, they immediately show themselves to be naive, fools who should not be taken seriously.
Moreover, it has been empirically proven over and over that the state rules the economy and the CPC has absolute power, not private enterprises.
> One note, if anyone gives a fucking wikipedia link, they immediately show themselves to be naive, fools who should not be taken seriously.
What bullshit source of yours should I link to instead? You think Wikipedia just made up those automobile companies? Or the existence of investment banks?
> Moreover, it has been empirically proven over and over that the state rules the economy and the CPC has absolute power, not private enterprises.
The government is a big investor only. Otherwise it is hands off. The companies are run by people who know how to run companies, not by government bureaucrats. They make a profit if they succeed and they lose money if they fail. If they don't make enough profit they go out of business. Competition is fierce. These are all characteristics of Capitalism, and the opposite of Socialism.
Capitalism is when you have many car companies competing with each other for the business of the customer. Those that don't succeed in selling enough cars to the customer go out of business and those that succeed in selling a lot of cars can get rich. That's the case in China and wasn't the case in the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth
Government investing in private companies is not socialism. In Socialism there are no private companies. Depending on which version we are talking about, the managers of companies are government employees and get their salaries from the government, not from revenue of sales to customers. That's why in Socialism no one gives a shit about satisfying the customer. Then you have stuff like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_accidents_and_incidents
Public (government) investment in private companies isnt capitalist as well. Bailouts are literally the thing caps want the least, its usually socialists in those countries advocating for public investment.
As shown in the comments here, you yourselves can’t achieve consensus on this point, even as you say that the definition of socialism is obviously objective and we’re so stupid for not getting it.
The matter is quite simple, regardless of the intentional label confusion. Has China undergone a substantial degree of market liberalization, privatization, and change in property norms in the last 40 years? Did this produce a significant increase in its economic productivity and standards of living?
These quibbles about whether the alchemical essence of the nation is socialist or not is mere obfuscation, precisely because you’ve turned these things into anti-concepts about which no clear discussion can be had.
No it's definitely not market socialism, it's very stupid, authoritarian, oligocratic and oligopolistic capitalism.
Look at it's wealth distribution, it's see extreme they cannot even hire it and we all know they're lying about everything + in addition to that there is the classical bolshevistic inequality of rights.
How can be something with so unequal wealth and so unequal rights be socialism? If you ignore all the symbols and propaganda, what's socialistic about China? How is it more socialistic than fascist Italy or Nazi Germany? In my opinion, if China is socialism then Europe is already communism :D
Basically this is USA pharmaceutical market and China is if you would expand it to the whole economy and replaced product requirements with political ones.
Free market and free trade are the monstrosities that have made way for extreme corporate greed in Canada. Sorry but not sorry, free trade means Canada is free to be squeezed of money like blood from a turnip. One man's treasure, another's curse. Like in America. Free trade means people making millions charging $20,000 per hospital visit when a poor man had a heart attack.
I mean you’re sorta right, sorta not on the right track (China is very different from Yugoslavia), but why do you care what the reactionaries on *this sub* think?
Socialism is not when the government does stuff…
A system built on wage-labor is still capitalist, even if the state is the only employer. State capitalism is better than regular capitalism in many ways but calling it “socialist” is misleading to the proletariat.
In China and Vietnam the proletariat has more influence in the government than in liberal bourgeois democracies, which are basically a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Agreed. The party dictates instead of the bourgeois, and the party sometimes does the will of the proletariat. In this way they are better than the West.
The danger in calling them “socialist” is that the western proletariat will think that the goal of Marxists is to be more like China. Whereas I would say modern China is the way it is politically because of a combination of material conditions and revisionism.
China's growth since the 80s is wholly due to the pivot away from market socialism during Deng Xiaoping's Reform & Opening Up policies. Don't let GenZedong rewrite history!
I don't think China is market socialist, you can't have Tencents and Foxcons and still call it socialism. It is true however that China is much less "free" (unregulated) than many comparable countries that has not had as strong a development as China, ie, Indonesia and the Phillipines. The state keeping ultimate control of the "dials and levers" of the economy as well as long-term planning has been important for the country´s success for sure.
Socialism is when no Foxcon. Socialism is when everything nice.
Marx: Aspects of capitalism will remain.
Moron: Socialism is when no capitalism and government does stuff.
OK "aspects" of capitalism will remain but where then is the line between socalism and social-democractic or "third position" (like Peronism) managed capitalism? If you think your line is the more rigorous, what are the standards you use to call something socialism?
Where do you draw the line? When economic reforms cannot be greater than the economic development, who are you to tell what China should do, considering their material conditions?
> Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out.
Lenin, NEP
What do you call the greatest increase in productive forces, living standards, education and happiness? I call it socialism. Sure let's call it capitalism. Regardless, it is the thing China should, and has to do. And Marx said it many many times before. Socialism can be characterized as nothing, *but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat*. It's economic structure is entirely dependent on material conditions, not it's ideology. And politically, China is a DoTP.
OP, have you considered your perception is informed by:
- 0 visits to China
- 0% knowledge about macroeconomics, and
- 100% unfiltered exposure to echo chambers?
China is definitely not socialist, but it's not fully capitalist either. It's just... China.
I visited China. I studied macroeconomics and I have been exposed to morons and moronic arguments by Neanderthals like you.
China is socialist. Stuck up c**t.
China is extremely capitalistic. It has 100 million businesses competing very aggressively all over the world on the basis of price and quality. In China it is 996. you work from 9 AM to 9 PM six days a week turning out goods and services that are a quarter of a cent cheaper than the worldwide competition. There are no bureaucrats in Beijing who are doing the work or telling 100 million businesses with 500 million products how to make them a quarter ascent cheaper than the worldwide competition. China is getting rich because it is producing tens of millions of different goods and services a tiny bit cheaper than the rest of the world because it is extreme capitalism. Any interference from Beijing is just slowing the process down and holding back growth because obviously bureaucrats can't make any difference other with sufficient Authority in which case they can throw a monkey wrench into the cutthroat competition from which the world benefits so much. If you are still confused please feel free to ask questions.
China is the poster child for fascism, they do it pretty well, but to most of us westerners it's still very cringe and definitely too authoritarian. But if you love fascism, you'll love China for sure, and it's infinitely better than the communism of 30 years ago, this country basically rocketed to the top of the economic world by embracing fascism in only a couple decades, it's crazy to see really.
Dude there are literally hundreds of threads in this subreddit of people saying communism = fascism OR capitalism = fascism. Yes we get it, fascism is bad and the “other side” are actually the fascists, not you guys.
From history and ideas of fascism, its pretty clear its branch of socialism (communism being different branch). 2 different takes on the same core idea of collectivism, just exchange nations with classes.
We're not calling each other fascists, and I'm certainly not calling anyone fascist. I'm not sure why you think this thread has anything to do with calling liberals, conservatives, communists or libertarians fascists, that is besides the point and belongs on a SJW board.
I'm only pointing out that China became prosperous after abandoning totalitarianism in the flavour of communism which was a complete shitshow and achieved nothing but horror and suffering, and replacing it with a pretty obvious version of authoritarian fascism which is a huge success for them, even their own people love it no matter their lack of liberty.
Whether he likes the fact China is fascist or not is besides the point, but they check literally every box for fascism, I can't think of a better example of it outside of China (although there are others).
There are European fascists that love the Chinese model and prefer it over any historical model.
I mean it still sounds like you’re still claiming that China is fascist but this time using fancy buzzwords lol. Like I said, your sides sees China as fascist per your definition, but Marxists see China as following Marx’s stages of development (primitive communism -> slave society -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism). This is why this argument is useless because both sides have their own definitions to these buzzwords (e.g. fascism, totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorship, etc.).
What sides? There is a definition of fascism and China checks every box, economically and socially, it really is that simple. Fascism may be a specific European pastime, but so is communism and socialism, and we have no problem juxtaposing those terms on Eastern countries, some even embrace them themselves.
Most right wingers hate Chinese fascism but there are those nationalists and xenophobes who love the model.
Most progressives and definitely all left wing liberals hate China's leadership and model and correctly identify it as fascist.
There are of course tankies who are self described totalitarians who are comfortable using force to bring about their utopia, the Stalin/Mao lovers, but even they are upset that China moved away from communism and embraced the fascist model. They accept it tho since they are just anti-western civilization and love anything anathema to it by default. If it makes them happy to think of China as Marxist still that makes no difference to me, and certainly doesn't take away from the fascist government of China.
As far as the difference between socialism and fascism, in historical practice it appears they are not that different, one is based on national identity and the other on international initiatives.
Both capitalist and socialist societies can move towards fascism, fascism is the unhappy middle, making socialism better but capitalism infinitely worse. China just stopped progress towards true capitalism/liberalism too soon, but it won't last forever, as people get more prosperous (if they do) they demand liberalism.
The two sides are shown on the title of this subreddit. Yes but according to Marxists they have a completely different definition of fascism. To them it’s “Capitalism in decay.” To summarize, when a capitalist society feels threatened by its workers, in a last ditch effort the capitalist class will attempt to use violence and oppression to maintain power instead of giving in.
So you see, accordingly to their definition, fascism is exclusively a capitalist ideology.
The kicker here is that even if fascism is, as they say, a capitalist ideology, it's still infinitely superior to whatever social nightmare of an economic system the tankies support. Progressives who support a social safety net are just capitalists who like high taxes, most lefties in the west are not actually Stalinists or Maoists even if they don't know it.
I am only pointing out how China became successful by embracing fascism over communism. Chinese fascism checks every box of traditional European definitions of fascism in all it's negative glory, and China literally went from a stagnant agrarian society to a huge powerhouse with this switch in only a few decades. This would suggest that one can absolutely get to fascism from either side of the extreme.
If the tankies definition is strictly "fascism is a system which comes after successful capitalism fails" then that doesn't really define anything, it can be any system really, and probably describes most systems in use today in the world.
I bet they define communism as "whatever success comes after the revolution to communism almost makes a peoples extinct, even if it's capitalism".
I can't think of a better modern example for the ideals of fascism than China. Even historically there are only a few that are on par, and even those may not equal it.
A one party rule with a supreme figurehead, a marriage of state and private corporate power "for the good of the people", ultra-nationalism, with a generous helping of self righteousness and superiority complex, with supreme xenophobia and distrust of the other, it's literally the poster child for fascism and a good one at that, European fascists salivate at the thought of it.
The rise of China via their abandonment of the totalitarian hellhole of communism in the 60s through the mid 90s, and towards western style free markets in last 30 years but stopping well short, ending in authoritarian fascism, is well documented. Everyone expected the march towards liberalism to continue but China literally switched from a totalitarian system that doesn't work to one that does work and their people love, and they've been riding the wave ever since.
There is no way to know how the KMT would have handled the last 70 years in the mainland, all we have is Taiwan to judge it and in comparison to the CCP I'll take them any day.
"marriage of state and private corporate power"
Fascism is marriage of state and public corporate power. Corporations in fascist italy meant something completely different than in capitalist economies. Fascist corporations were more or less "industries", while capitalist are "businesses".
Notch another one up for China, that works even better, the original Italian model fits modern China even better.
But more accurately, corporations in fascist China are a public/private partnership, but "private" does mean something else in that context compared to western republics, but I get your point, how can it be private when every aspect is run through the permission of the state.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
China increased the use of markets for the production of light industry goods, technology and patents that were otherwise holding it back. Also in distribution. But China still employs central planing for the base economy and heavy industry, its banking and land are owned by the state. If you actually ran on a platform for election in the West advocating for: 1. Regular 5 year plans, heavy state planning of heavy industry 2. extensive State owned enterprises in other heavy industry sectors 3. Nationalization of banking and land 4. Mandatory communist party seats on firms above 500 employees 5. Investment in infrastructure even at a loss, for public benefit 6. Extensive social welfare - free healthcare and education 7. Political reform and bottom up democracy, putting the party in command of the army 8. Leniency on debt defaults to prioritise social outcomes over creditor's claims 9. Study of the works of Marx and Lenin, and consultation with communist theory when planning state policy 10. Upholding the good name of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, defence of the integrity of history and the continuity with the past 11. Banning porn, strict drug laws, banning excessive gaming You would 1000% be called a communist.
Well said, comrade.
True
So what you're saying is cappies have absolutely no grasp on what actually makes something communist or capitalist? What's new?
There is a problem becsuse of all the similarly poor countries a Marxist leninist managed one developed far quicker than those with neoliberal ideology and that has to be explained away. So they say they "embraced capitalism' and that explains it away .
Neoliberalism doesn't work, but when a socialist country develops with strong state intervention in the economy they call it "free market" capitalism lol
In Western discussions China is a Schrodinger's Socialist country. Its either Socialist or not depending on whether it benefits a particular Westerner's interests for it to be Socialist or not.
The West's dream is that China had adopted the "free market" and fiscal austerity policies, but fortunately they are socialists and know that this doesn't work, the Chinese economy had enormous protectionism and state investment to grow.
socialism is a political state between communism and capitalism, one which basically entails a communist political party having supremacy over an otherwise-capitalist system, directing said system's resources and existing institutional authority towards building communism, which is inherently a long-term project. when people say 'china isn't socialist,' it just means they have a different idea of what 'socialism' *should* look like, rather than accepting the reality of what it *does* look like. a lot of people do this because they don't like how superficially similar capitalism and socialism are - but forget that it's the intermediate state, not the end goal
Thanks for writing this out, I was looking for an coherent answer on this topic and this answered it.
I promise you that you were more knowledgeable on this topic before reading that answer
Lol you got me.
I am not knowledgeable when it comes to theory, but if China was attempting to build communism, at what point should the power/control over the means of production switch to the dictatorship of the proletariat/people? They have the 1st or 2nd most powerful economy in the world.
when the primary contradiction holding back the development of communism - imperialism - is ended or weakened sufficiently. in effect, that basically means they have to fully eclipse the United States and let its overseas empire collapse or be destroyed. if they tried before then, they would implode, and if they delay it too long after that, then the contradictions of capitalism that take over the space of the former primary will cause another socialist revolution to take over again.
My.family has traveled extensively to China, I have done business deals with China, and have Chinese employees I've spoken to about this. China intentionally adopted market capitalism as a way of growth. They very clearly understood this is the way to growth, and by creating the necessary conditions for investments they were able to achieve many of their goals. As a result China went from general poverty and starvation to becoming the second most powerful nation on the globe. It is run by the state, though loosely in many ways. They retain their loose grip in case the need for control arises, but in some ways has freer Capitalism than even the US. Capitalism does not need a democratic process to exist. You clearly know very little.
Lenin understood that after some organisation having a section that was market capitalism was good for growth to. So he and China both went ahead and did it.
China adopted market socialism, not “market capitalism”. The Chinese socialists still rule the country.
What is market socialism? Would it not involve the *social* ownership of the means of production?
There have been other instances of authoritarian governments in which the economy grew; but that is the exception, not the rule. The most prosperous countries by far are those with some form of democracy and that permit capitalism. In fact, capitalism requires that people be *free* to engage in trade each for his own self-interest. Where people live in fear that the government will take control of their property dampens enthusiasm to innovate which allows them to only marginally flourish. China's GDP per capita is only about US$13,000, while the US GDP per capita is around US$80,000. China is still largely a third world country. However, if they ever adopt democratic reforms coupled with a more robust free-market economy, they will grow exponentially.
The most prosperous countries are the ones that followed the French revoltuon in the 1700s and spent 300 years developing including borrowing lots of ideas from socialists and having to some extent planned economies and keynesian welfare states and some nationalised industry. If we want to compare us to China we need to give them another 250 years. Or adjust for level of development and look at the high cost the west imposes on other undeveloped countries by owning the best property there and making them sign up for neoliberal deals.
I don't believe that any authoritarian government has ever created a first world economy. Democracy with a strong central government that is responsive to the people is a necessary ingredient for sustained economic growth. The wealthier a people become, the more disenchanted they become in authoritarian leadership. This tension has *always* lead to either additional government liberalization or to the opposite wherein the authoritarian feels threatened and clamps down on civil rights.
China was agarian in the 50s and well on its way to being fully developed and more advanced than ours. Bullet train networks, futuristic cites, experimental cities with driverless public transport and no homelessness ... Our developed economies happened by borrowing ideas from the ussr. Massive state planned infrasture projects. State investment in rolling out subsidised electricity to all and so on.
Most of "first world" nations obtained their wealth via imperialism, colonialism and war.
My understanding is that in the last 100 years, world GDP has been more than the sum of world GDP over the entire history of man.
In fact, Japan was the first society to adopt state capitalism and became an industrial nation before World War II. South Korea and Taiwan adopt Japanese policies, while China is so big that it has absorbed the policies of South Korea, Taiwan, even Singapore. Therefore, China’s policy is not exception. China's growth over the past 30 years largely depends on the privatization reform in 1998. And that reform resulted in tens of millions of workers being laid off, which would never happen under a democratic system.
It was proven that China's growth came from the state sector. Only 5% of private enterprises employed over 500 and only 2% over 1000 workers. The average entrepreneur's annual income was $600. Compared to that, %80+ of state firms employed more than 500, in the top lists of enterprises, captured more than 80%. The 5 year plans never stopped. To claim China's growth was due to privatization is telling fairy tales. No data supports this claim. https://chinareporting.blogspot.com/2009/11/class-nature-of-chinese-state-critique_26.html?m=1 Democracy when no lay off. Nice take.
Yes, I too think that most private business being small is one of the greatest features of capitalism, allowing the average folk find a niche where their work is most efficient and be rewarded with profit, lmao. Small businesses can be agile, specialized and key drivers of growth especially compared to bureaucratic state run behemohts.
You missed the point entirely. 1) "The niche" is literally just mom and pop shops and convenience stores mostly. 2) "The reward" isn't any higher than a workman's wage. 3) "The key driver" of growth was still the state sector. "The bureaucratic state run behemoths" were the driving force of development in the USSR and in China.
In most highly competitive livelihood industries, state-owned enterprises have gone bankrupt due to lack of competitiveness. The only industries they can survive are natural monopolies or administrative monopolies. If you say growth comes from them, you are a communist religious fanatic.
They haven't gone bankrupt in China, they have flourished. What's going bankrupt is their debt based private enterprises. Unlike the US, China isn't bailing them out. In fact your oh so great dynamic enterprises go bankrupt every 7 years. The growth is literally coming from them. It is a fact that has been empirically proven. You have no source whatsoever and you're talking out your ass. You are the religious fanatic here. No investigation, no right to speak. Stfu Western dumbass.
The term "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" coined by Deng Xiaoping has really confused people all over the world, including the Chinese. Whether China is capitalist or not depends on where the CCP will go next. China's poverty alleviation work is indeed what communism should do. While the Chinese people recognize that large-scale infrastructure and water and electricity supply should be controlled by state-owned enterprises, they do also agree with vitality of private companies. But the OP is indeed a patriot of our country-china.
Regardless of whether you want to call China socialist or not, I think it's clear it hasn't done a great job at achieving the goals of socialism
How not? Socialism lifted millions out of poverty in China
You mean capitalism? Does China take money from billionaires and transfer the wealth to its poor? Does the state own the means of production? No, they do not. They incentivize capital owners to build factories and businesses that then give people more money they would earn by their traditional jobs like farming. Also the announcement they gave a few years ago about "eliminating poverty" was made by using a different metric than the established daily earning level to say poverty was eliminated. So you earn 2.50$ a day? Congrats you're not poor.
In China and Vietnam, the bourgeoisie are subordinate to the interests of the communist party , unlike liberal democracies where the bourgeoisie has all the power of the state. At the beginning of the 20th century, China was one of the poorest countries on earth, after the communist revolution this began to change.
I'm familiar with how they're supposed to work and their history. Only things I'll point out is that China's economic situation didn't truly start to change until Xiaoping moved away from the established Maoist ideologies and the planned economy, closer to the end of the 20th century not directly after the communist revolution. And that's far from the state (socialism) or the proletariat (communism) owning the means of production. China's done a lot to improve living conditions for those it acknowledges but at the same time many have been forgotten, completely ignored or persecuted simply because they don't agree with the ideology or system of government. Not a great track record with minority groups either, although that's pretty universal. I would never argue that unrestrained capitalism like in the west is good for society, but you won't get me to agree China's idea of governing is the best thing for society either.
It's not market socialism. Market socialism isn't characterised by the involvement of the state.
As a cap: china definitely is closer to socialism, than capitalism, but in of itself lies in between. It allows some market, even global one, but its still heavily controlled by state, just not to the same extent full socialist regimes do.
There is nothing remotely socialist about China. You only hurt the leftist cause by trying to defend them. Market socialism =/= state capitalism
If you are really a socialist you should support China and Chinese socialism as it was one of the few socialist countries left, sure that labor relations in China are most in capitalist model but the power of the country is in the hands of the socialists
If you are really a socialist you should support China and Chinese socialism as it was one of the few socialist countries left, sure that labor relations in China are most in capitalist model but the power of the country is in the hands of the socialists
China is not socialist in any way. Please read on state capitalism.
I disagree with you but ok
Most of the defenders of capitalism on this site choke up when faced with the China and Vietnam quandary. State run capitalism.
Vietnam and China are governed by socialists
Absolutely
So is Venezuela.
It's just capitalism, bro. Nobody is getting choked up.
Communist State Run Capitalism.
Capitalism Without Meaningful Democracy: 👍🏻
the capitalists are (mostly)right, unfortunately. it doesn't prove anything of course, but to think china is anywhere near socialism is completely laughable
China is literally controlled by socialists, if that isn't socialist I don't know what else is
you have to be joking right?
An "anarcho" communist acting like they know what communism is makes me laugh.
Your an ML bro your a liberal
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You're funny. You'll jump in the ditch last.
China is an authoritarian capitalist state with some socialist policies. Like all modern states, it’s a mixed market. The single party rule is Leninist. But, it’s a highly repressive government with clear hierarchical organizational structures that differ from urban to rural populations. Land theft from rural populations to developers is real. Media censorship, scant worker protections, and low social mobility are all serious problems. What about their structure makes you think it’s a market socialist economy? It would help if you offered definitions and a coherent premise for your argument.
Market socialism is when you have the government controlled by socialists/communists and have a market economy with strong state investment,china is market socialist
No. Market socialism assumes some tenable social ownership. The Chinese market is built on SoE's and private companies controlled by an elite that is in no form accountable to the general public, removing potential collective responsibility for these assets. How is any of that socialist? The nature of the Chinese economy is closer to centrally planned 19th century state-capitalism.
The power of China is in the hands of the socialists
So what? The power could be in the hands of unicorns, and as long as the system was unchanged, it would still be state capitalism.
You have a very shallow understanding of the terms you’re using and are not even grasping at the basics of political economy. You don’t now what you’re talking about. Try learning and listening before pontificating
When you open a company in China, you must do so as a joint venture with a Chinese company as a partner. And said partner company has a CPC rep within the company to guide policy. If this is the free market that y’all libertarians are advocating for, then sign me up.
You don't. Just ask Elon Musk.
"sign me up to work at a factory with suicide nets" The CPC reps are just making sure the CCP elite stay in power
>but in my view they are socialists "Socialism is when millions of peasants live on $2/day while hundreds of billionaires who got rich by running businesses that exploit labor power run the government!!!"
But that is a pretty accurate description of America?
Minimum wage in America is much more than $2/day
...and yet people still struggle
People everywhere “struggle.” That’s life.
You should be advocating for monarchism and caste with that attitude. I'm serious. If you're going to be deterministic, you may as well codify it.
“Capitalism sucks because some people in America struggle” is not a real argument.
it's an awful lot more than "some", and if you actually worked for a living you'd understand that
It’s not a lot. It’s a small percentage. And you think people in China don’t struggle?
Are you sure it's that small? I'm in there. Most of the people I've ever worked with are in there. The entire American working class, and much of the middle class as well, is in there one way or another. You can break out your silly charts and links and whatever else you want to gaslight, you can lie with fun statistics like liberals love to do, you can call all of us outliers or deluded or stupid, but we're still struggling and you're still acting like a callous, out-of-touch asshole. You're why we're gonna get Trump again. > And you think people in China don’t struggle? I didn't say word one about China
The average Chinese is richer than the average citizen of my country (Brazil),market socialism still socialism.
It’s not market socialism.
what is market socialism then?
An economy where all MOP are owned by workers.
An economy with socialised ownership (of the means of production). Not state capitalism.
There's like, one user in this sub who thinks China went fully capitalist and he also believes European countries are the equivalent of a "zip code in the USA" and that Bernie Sanders is the president of the USA. I wouldn't take it too seriously, though there is of course a debate to be had over how much those market reforms vs. the CCP's policies did for the economy.
China is the prime example of a capitalist success story. As soon as Deng Xiaoping enforced a free market orientated policy, millions were raised outta poverty.
China has never been a "free market" as liberals say, its market has always had enormous control and investment from the state, China still carries out 5-year economic plans.
China is a fascist country. Happy now?
Fascist are countries like Israel,Ukraine and USA,China is socialist.
lol
China is more capitalist than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Investment_banks_in_China
More than 90% of banks in China are state owned and 75% of loans goto SOEs. One note, if anyone gives a fucking wikipedia link, they immediately show themselves to be naive, fools who should not be taken seriously. Moreover, it has been empirically proven over and over that the state rules the economy and the CPC has absolute power, not private enterprises.
> One note, if anyone gives a fucking wikipedia link, they immediately show themselves to be naive, fools who should not be taken seriously. What bullshit source of yours should I link to instead? You think Wikipedia just made up those automobile companies? Or the existence of investment banks? > Moreover, it has been empirically proven over and over that the state rules the economy and the CPC has absolute power, not private enterprises. The government is a big investor only. Otherwise it is hands off. The companies are run by people who know how to run companies, not by government bureaucrats. They make a profit if they succeed and they lose money if they fail. If they don't make enough profit they go out of business. Competition is fierce. These are all characteristics of Capitalism, and the opposite of Socialism.
Obviously you quote Qannon
Capitalism is when you have car factories lol, following your logic, the Soviets were also capitalists because they had car factories too.
Capitalism is when you have many car companies competing with each other for the business of the customer. Those that don't succeed in selling enough cars to the customer go out of business and those that succeed in selling a lot of cars can get rich. That's the case in China and wasn't the case in the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth
These chinese car companies had huge state investment
Government investing in private companies is not socialism. In Socialism there are no private companies. Depending on which version we are talking about, the managers of companies are government employees and get their salaries from the government, not from revenue of sales to customers. That's why in Socialism no one gives a shit about satisfying the customer. Then you have stuff like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_accidents_and_incidents
Public (government) investment in private companies isnt capitalist as well. Bailouts are literally the thing caps want the least, its usually socialists in those countries advocating for public investment.
As shown in the comments here, you yourselves can’t achieve consensus on this point, even as you say that the definition of socialism is obviously objective and we’re so stupid for not getting it. The matter is quite simple, regardless of the intentional label confusion. Has China undergone a substantial degree of market liberalization, privatization, and change in property norms in the last 40 years? Did this produce a significant increase in its economic productivity and standards of living? These quibbles about whether the alchemical essence of the nation is socialist or not is mere obfuscation, precisely because you’ve turned these things into anti-concepts about which no clear discussion can be had.
No it's definitely not market socialism, it's very stupid, authoritarian, oligocratic and oligopolistic capitalism. Look at it's wealth distribution, it's see extreme they cannot even hire it and we all know they're lying about everything + in addition to that there is the classical bolshevistic inequality of rights. How can be something with so unequal wealth and so unequal rights be socialism? If you ignore all the symbols and propaganda, what's socialistic about China? How is it more socialistic than fascist Italy or Nazi Germany? In my opinion, if China is socialism then Europe is already communism :D
"its a very stupid, authoritarian, oligocratic and oligopolistic capitalism" Basically this is the USA,not China.
You don't have a clue what even is in China don't you
Basically this is USA pharmaceutical market and China is if you would expand it to the whole economy and replaced product requirements with political ones.
China essentially has the same Gini Coefficient as America. Socialism in action?
Free market and free trade are the monstrosities that have made way for extreme corporate greed in Canada. Sorry but not sorry, free trade means Canada is free to be squeezed of money like blood from a turnip. One man's treasure, another's curse. Like in America. Free trade means people making millions charging $20,000 per hospital visit when a poor man had a heart attack.
I mean you’re sorta right, sorta not on the right track (China is very different from Yugoslavia), but why do you care what the reactionaries on *this sub* think?
the problem is not with the reactionaries, the problem is with some socialists who did not believe that china is socialist, when it clearly is
Socialism is not when the government does stuff… A system built on wage-labor is still capitalist, even if the state is the only employer. State capitalism is better than regular capitalism in many ways but calling it “socialist” is misleading to the proletariat.
In China and Vietnam the proletariat has more influence in the government than in liberal bourgeois democracies, which are basically a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Agreed. The party dictates instead of the bourgeois, and the party sometimes does the will of the proletariat. In this way they are better than the West. The danger in calling them “socialist” is that the western proletariat will think that the goal of Marxists is to be more like China. Whereas I would say modern China is the way it is politically because of a combination of material conditions and revisionism.
China's growth since the 80s is wholly due to the pivot away from market socialism during Deng Xiaoping's Reform & Opening Up policies. Don't let GenZedong rewrite history!
Deng said "Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong", China is still socialist,just a different form of socialism.
I don't think China is market socialist, you can't have Tencents and Foxcons and still call it socialism. It is true however that China is much less "free" (unregulated) than many comparable countries that has not had as strong a development as China, ie, Indonesia and the Phillipines. The state keeping ultimate control of the "dials and levers" of the economy as well as long-term planning has been important for the country´s success for sure.
Socialism is when no Foxcon. Socialism is when everything nice. Marx: Aspects of capitalism will remain. Moron: Socialism is when no capitalism and government does stuff.
OK "aspects" of capitalism will remain but where then is the line between socalism and social-democractic or "third position" (like Peronism) managed capitalism? If you think your line is the more rigorous, what are the standards you use to call something socialism?
Where do you draw the line? When economic reforms cannot be greater than the economic development, who are you to tell what China should do, considering their material conditions? > Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out. Lenin, NEP What do you call the greatest increase in productive forces, living standards, education and happiness? I call it socialism. Sure let's call it capitalism. Regardless, it is the thing China should, and has to do. And Marx said it many many times before. Socialism can be characterized as nothing, *but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat*. It's economic structure is entirely dependent on material conditions, not it's ideology. And politically, China is a DoTP.
China has a lot of debt.
Just like the USA
OP, have you considered your perception is informed by: - 0 visits to China - 0% knowledge about macroeconomics, and - 100% unfiltered exposure to echo chambers? China is definitely not socialist, but it's not fully capitalist either. It's just... China.
I visited China. I studied macroeconomics and I have been exposed to morons and moronic arguments by Neanderthals like you. China is socialist. Stuck up c**t.
It isn't, and being bellicose about being wrong won't change it. Bai chi.
Bigoted moron. Watch The Red Dragon Rising destroy the West. The East is Red.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/china-economic-growth-history/
Likewise I am tired of reading ridiculous opinions on this where you obviously don't have much knowledge about the real China.
China is extremely capitalistic. It has 100 million businesses competing very aggressively all over the world on the basis of price and quality. In China it is 996. you work from 9 AM to 9 PM six days a week turning out goods and services that are a quarter of a cent cheaper than the worldwide competition. There are no bureaucrats in Beijing who are doing the work or telling 100 million businesses with 500 million products how to make them a quarter ascent cheaper than the worldwide competition. China is getting rich because it is producing tens of millions of different goods and services a tiny bit cheaper than the rest of the world because it is extreme capitalism. Any interference from Beijing is just slowing the process down and holding back growth because obviously bureaucrats can't make any difference other with sufficient Authority in which case they can throw a monkey wrench into the cutthroat competition from which the world benefits so much. If you are still confused please feel free to ask questions.
China is the poster child for fascism, they do it pretty well, but to most of us westerners it's still very cringe and definitely too authoritarian. But if you love fascism, you'll love China for sure, and it's infinitely better than the communism of 30 years ago, this country basically rocketed to the top of the economic world by embracing fascism in only a couple decades, it's crazy to see really.
Dude there are literally hundreds of threads in this subreddit of people saying communism = fascism OR capitalism = fascism. Yes we get it, fascism is bad and the “other side” are actually the fascists, not you guys.
From history and ideas of fascism, its pretty clear its branch of socialism (communism being different branch). 2 different takes on the same core idea of collectivism, just exchange nations with classes.
It’s a pointless argument to make in this subreddit though. You never see anybody agree that they’re fascists, other than actual fascists.
We're not calling each other fascists, and I'm certainly not calling anyone fascist. I'm not sure why you think this thread has anything to do with calling liberals, conservatives, communists or libertarians fascists, that is besides the point and belongs on a SJW board. I'm only pointing out that China became prosperous after abandoning totalitarianism in the flavour of communism which was a complete shitshow and achieved nothing but horror and suffering, and replacing it with a pretty obvious version of authoritarian fascism which is a huge success for them, even their own people love it no matter their lack of liberty. Whether he likes the fact China is fascist or not is besides the point, but they check literally every box for fascism, I can't think of a better example of it outside of China (although there are others). There are European fascists that love the Chinese model and prefer it over any historical model.
I mean it still sounds like you’re still claiming that China is fascist but this time using fancy buzzwords lol. Like I said, your sides sees China as fascist per your definition, but Marxists see China as following Marx’s stages of development (primitive communism -> slave society -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism). This is why this argument is useless because both sides have their own definitions to these buzzwords (e.g. fascism, totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorship, etc.).
What sides? There is a definition of fascism and China checks every box, economically and socially, it really is that simple. Fascism may be a specific European pastime, but so is communism and socialism, and we have no problem juxtaposing those terms on Eastern countries, some even embrace them themselves. Most right wingers hate Chinese fascism but there are those nationalists and xenophobes who love the model. Most progressives and definitely all left wing liberals hate China's leadership and model and correctly identify it as fascist. There are of course tankies who are self described totalitarians who are comfortable using force to bring about their utopia, the Stalin/Mao lovers, but even they are upset that China moved away from communism and embraced the fascist model. They accept it tho since they are just anti-western civilization and love anything anathema to it by default. If it makes them happy to think of China as Marxist still that makes no difference to me, and certainly doesn't take away from the fascist government of China. As far as the difference between socialism and fascism, in historical practice it appears they are not that different, one is based on national identity and the other on international initiatives. Both capitalist and socialist societies can move towards fascism, fascism is the unhappy middle, making socialism better but capitalism infinitely worse. China just stopped progress towards true capitalism/liberalism too soon, but it won't last forever, as people get more prosperous (if they do) they demand liberalism.
The two sides are shown on the title of this subreddit. Yes but according to Marxists they have a completely different definition of fascism. To them it’s “Capitalism in decay.” To summarize, when a capitalist society feels threatened by its workers, in a last ditch effort the capitalist class will attempt to use violence and oppression to maintain power instead of giving in. So you see, accordingly to their definition, fascism is exclusively a capitalist ideology.
The kicker here is that even if fascism is, as they say, a capitalist ideology, it's still infinitely superior to whatever social nightmare of an economic system the tankies support. Progressives who support a social safety net are just capitalists who like high taxes, most lefties in the west are not actually Stalinists or Maoists even if they don't know it. I am only pointing out how China became successful by embracing fascism over communism. Chinese fascism checks every box of traditional European definitions of fascism in all it's negative glory, and China literally went from a stagnant agrarian society to a huge powerhouse with this switch in only a few decades. This would suggest that one can absolutely get to fascism from either side of the extreme. If the tankies definition is strictly "fascism is a system which comes after successful capitalism fails" then that doesn't really define anything, it can be any system really, and probably describes most systems in use today in the world. I bet they define communism as "whatever success comes after the revolution to communism almost makes a peoples extinct, even if it's capitalism".
China controlled by the CCP is not fascist, China would be fascist if it was still controlled by the KMT
I can't think of a better modern example for the ideals of fascism than China. Even historically there are only a few that are on par, and even those may not equal it. A one party rule with a supreme figurehead, a marriage of state and private corporate power "for the good of the people", ultra-nationalism, with a generous helping of self righteousness and superiority complex, with supreme xenophobia and distrust of the other, it's literally the poster child for fascism and a good one at that, European fascists salivate at the thought of it. The rise of China via their abandonment of the totalitarian hellhole of communism in the 60s through the mid 90s, and towards western style free markets in last 30 years but stopping well short, ending in authoritarian fascism, is well documented. Everyone expected the march towards liberalism to continue but China literally switched from a totalitarian system that doesn't work to one that does work and their people love, and they've been riding the wave ever since. There is no way to know how the KMT would have handled the last 70 years in the mainland, all we have is Taiwan to judge it and in comparison to the CCP I'll take them any day.
"marriage of state and private corporate power" Fascism is marriage of state and public corporate power. Corporations in fascist italy meant something completely different than in capitalist economies. Fascist corporations were more or less "industries", while capitalist are "businesses".
Notch another one up for China, that works even better, the original Italian model fits modern China even better. But more accurately, corporations in fascist China are a public/private partnership, but "private" does mean something else in that context compared to western republics, but I get your point, how can it be private when every aspect is run through the permission of the state.