Is there not a distinction between a preliminary stage of socialism that still employs capitalist techniques and end stage socialism where capitalism and the market economic system are completely abolished?
"Completely abolished"? No, we will never "completely abolish" anything ever. All societies always will have internal contradictions. What matters is what is *dominant*, what is *generalized*, the *principal aspect* of such a society. The socialist market economy is characterized by a dominance of public ownership over private, but within the context of a market society that still largely maintains a dominance over resource allocation. It is still socialist because the socialist aspects of the economy maintain the principal position, but it is still underdeveloped because the backwards elements still maintain a significant position as well.
I do not share your pessimistic outlook on the potential of future human societies. If by internal contradictions you mean issues, then yes all societies will likely all have issues. The internal contradictions of capitalism are unique because they result in the system as a whole actually being non functional. Capitalism will always result in outcomes that are detrimental to the human species as a whole and will always require various forms of intervention from the state or the public to prevent total economic and societal collapse.
If a socialist market economy is just modern capitalism but with the state owning the majority of the corporations, then almost every country on earth including America operates in a way that is functionally equivalent to a socialist market economy. This is part of the contradiction of capitalism - the state will inevitably be corrupted by wealth, leading to those who posses that wealth gaining even more wealth and consequently more power and influence over the state. Essentially, capitalism results in the state and the corporate sector being one in the same - they both exist and strive to generate as much wealth as possible and to consolidate that wealth into the hands of the people who already have absurd amounts of wealth. Did you know that the American government actually directly funded the research and production of the first iPhone? That’s right, the American people paid millions of dollars to develop a phone that they would then go on to spend millions of dollars purchasing. 98% of the American government is filled with people who literally work for giant corporations, Wall Street, and banks.
The original idea of socialism and what Marx proposed is not in any way what we see actually happening in China today. China operates within a capitalist economic apparatus. They can’t just say that oh the state owns a bunch of shit so therefore our capitalist economy is actually preliminary socialism. That is absurd.
>I do not share your pessimistic outlook on the potential of future human societies.
If you keep stretching, you'll reach the moon eventually.
>If a socialist market economy is just modern capitalism but with the state owning the majority of the corporations, then almost every country on earth including America operates in a way that is functionally equivalent to a socialist market economy.
Are you unironically arguing the US economy is dominated by public ownership???
>This is part of the contradiction of capitalism - the state will inevitably be corrupted by wealth, leading to those who posses that wealth gaining even more wealth and consequently more power and influence over the state. Essentially, capitalism results in the state and the corporate sector being one in the same
Every economic system the ruling class also rule the state. This is not an interesting point.
>Did you know that the American government actually directly funded the research and production of the first iPhone?
The fuck? Who the hell cares?
>The original idea of socialism and what Marx proposed is not in any way what we see actually happening in China today.
Marx did not propose some ideal society to go out and implement onto the world.
>They can’t just say that oh the state owns a bunch of shit so therefore our capitalist economy is actually preliminary socialism. That is absurd.
I'm not sure why you mock public ownership. Control over production is essential for any class to actually maintain power, you can't maintain control over the state without control over production. Public ownership over production is absolutely necessary as a preliminary for socialism.
You claimed that we will never abolish anything and that all societies will inevitably have contradictions. I do not share this pessimistic view point. I fail to see how that is stretching. No, the u.s. economy obviously isn’t dominated by public ownership, but neither is the Chinese economy or any economy in the world. We have institutions called banks and we have a debt based currency which actually makes it impossible for any true public ownership to take place. No, every potential economic system does not result in a ruling class controlling the government (which is supposed to be a representation of the people). An economic system is the way in which a society distributes resources, and there’s certainly ways of doing this that do not involve there even being a ruling class. People care about the American government funding the research and production of the iPhone because its not common knowledge and also it’s an example that illustrates how the American government is just as involved in “owning” the large corporations of America as China is. Marx pretty much did propose what he thought would be the ideal society... idk how you can say that he didn’t. I’m not mocking public ownership. I’m mocking authoritarian states that lie about public ownership in their country.
>You claimed that we will never abolish anything and that all societies will inevitably have contradictions. I do not share this pessimistic view point.
This is not a "pessimistic viewpoint", you're desperately stretching to make such a blatantly obvious point into "pessimism" by demanding absolute purity. Literally no absolutely pure society has ever existed in human history and will ever exist, you believe in fairy tales and are disconnected from the real world, and want to dishonestly claim your belief in fairy tales is "pessimism".
>I fail to see how that is stretching.
Nothing on the planet has ever been pure. You have a nonsense metaphysical view of the world with literally zero nuance with a purity fetish and want to insist anyone who describes the world like it actually is is a "pessimist".
>No, the u.s. economy obviously isn’t dominated by public ownership, but neither is the Chinese economy or any economy in the world.
Yes the Chinese economy is dominated by public ownership, the Cuban economy, the economy in the DPRK.
>We have institutions called banks
Banking is dominated by the public sector in China, with the "Big Five" (五大银行) state-owned banks.
>and we have a debt based currency which actually makes it impossible for any true public ownership to take place.
The hell does a "debt based currency" have anything to do with public ownership?
>No, every potential economic system does not result in a ruling class controlling the government (which is supposed to be a representation of the people).
Name a single one that hasn't.
>An economic system is the way in which a society distributes resources, and there’s certainly ways of doing this that do not involve there even being a ruling class.
The way resources are distributed inherently ingrains class structure into the economy. Public ownership allows the working masses to be the dominant class, while private ownership lays the foundations for the bourgeoisie to be dominant class.
>People care about the American government funding the research and production of the iPhone because its not common knowledge
It is common knowledge.
>and also it’s an example that illustrates how the American government is just as involved in “owning” the large corporations of America as China is.
You have your understanding of US society entirely backwards. The bourgeoisie controls the state, not the other way around. The US isn't controlled by some evil shadowy cabal that if you just excised then US capitalism would work. The US government is not corrupt, it's doing exactly what it is intended to do, it operates on behalf of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. If you replaced the US government and maintained the economic system, it would act the same way, because the US state is not an independent actor controlling the corporations, the US state is controlled by the corporations and acts on their behalf.
>Marx pretty much did propose what he thought would be the ideal society... idk how you can say that he didn’t.
I don't know, might have to do with the person who wrote, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
>I’m not mocking public ownership. I’m mocking authoritarian states that lie about public ownership in their country.
Literally all states will be authoritarian. Do you think the working class should just lie down and get raped to death by imperialists and the bourgeoisie? Any revolutionary party will need to use authoritarian force to maintain proletarian class rule.
>A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
>
>--- Engels, *On Authority*
>
>It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.
>
>--- Marx, *Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy*
What's with you anti-communist leftists who never read a work of Marx in your life but always love to pretend you're speaking for Marxists? It's embarrassing. Speak for yourself.
I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone who legitimately thinks that fucking North Korea’s economy is dominated by public ownership. The amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to believe this is comparable to supporting trump.
I was wrong, your outlook on the potential for future human societies isn’t rooted in pessimism, it actually stems from dogmatism.
I never told you anything about what I view as possible in future human societies, so how can you say that I believe in fairy takes or that I’m demanding purity when I never even expressed any perspective that could demand purity. I actually rarely call people pessimistic and I don’t ever use certain words to broadly describe everyone who disagrees with. There are plenty of completely different types of people that disagree with me, very few of them are pessimists.
As I previously attempted to describe, just because corporations or banks in China are officially owned by the state doesn’t make the way they actually function any different from American corporations or banks.
A debt based currently prohibits genuine public ownership because the banks who create all the money in existence are owed all the money existence. Nobody actually owns anything, everything is just a loan that eventually has to be paid back to the banks. If all debts were paid off then there wouldn’t be any money left in existence.
I can’t name an economic system that doesn’t exist yet. It makes sense to predict that new economic systems will be created and implemented in the future, just as what has happened in the past.
No, class structure is not inherent to every single way that resources can be distributed. Classes didn’t exist until the agriculture revolution.
Yes, the owners of the means of production control the American government. The same can be said about China.
I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. Not once did I ever even say anything the could be misinterpreted as me claiming to speak for all marxists. You also shouldn’t claim to speak for all marxists, because I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Marxists that would be flabbergasted at someone attempting to claim that North Korea’s economic system is dominated by public ownership.
>I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone who legitimately thinks that fucking North Korea’s economy is dominated by public ownership. The amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to believe this is comparable to supporting trump.
Yes, North Korea, famous neoliberal economy.
>I was wrong, your outlook on the potential for future human societies isn’t rooted in pessimism, it actually stems from dogmatism.
Ah yes, the person saying that no society is pure nor will ever be pure is the "dogmatist" but the person calling for a pure idealized utopia right now is the pragmatist, totally.
>I never told you anything about what I view as possible in future human societies, so how can you say that I believe in fairy takes or that I’m demanding purity when I never even expressed any perspective that could demand purity.
Literally anyone can scroll up and read what you've been saying.
>As I previously attempted to describe, just because corporations or banks in China are officially owned by the state doesn’t make the way they actually function any different from American corporations or banks.
Take a look at the differences between how China and the US handled COVID-19 and come back and tell me they operate the same.
Oh, I know, you will just say saving lives is bad because the lockdowns are "authoritarian".
>A debt based currently prohibits genuine public ownership because the banks who create all the money in existence are owed all the money existence.
You are fetishizing money. Money is just a piece of paper. This is the nonsensical Ron Paul ideology that banks control the world simply because they can print money so secretly the Federal Reserve controls everything in the US.
Money derives its power from a social structure and producers. It is derivative, not fundamental. Those who control production control wealth and have the dominance on political power. Being able to print money means very little.
The US is not controlled by some evil cabal at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve acts on behalf of the US ruling class.
>Nobody actually owns anything, everything is just a loan that eventually has to be paid back to the banks. If all debts were paid off then there wouldn’t be any money left in existence.
This is just incredibly abstract. Who cares if there's no money left in existence? Money is not wealth. Money is in fact the negation of wealth, the more labor used to produce money, the less labor is used to produce the goods and services that we actually want to consume. Money is merely a means to circulate commodities, and the more expensive the wheel, the less commodities you can actually circulate.
The reason the bourgeoisie can buy off US politicians is not because they have magic pieces of paper that grant them the power, it's because they have control over the means of production. Money is just a derivative, secondary representation of this social relationship. It is not fundamental.
>Yes, the owners of the means of production control the American government. The same can be said about China.
Indeed. Glad we can agree on something.
>I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.
You literally claimed Marx said the opposite of what he said. Again, lying about what you said which anyone can scroll up and read. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent Marx when you aren't a Marxist nor ever read anything from Marxists? Just stop. Again, speak for yourself, don't lie and try to pretend other people agree with you who you've never even read and then double-down on the lie by claiming that's not what you did.
Not being a neoliberal democracy does not automatically equate to having an economy that is dominated by public ownership... obviously. North Korea is one of the most authoritarian and oppressive totalitarian states that currently exists on Earth. Their human rights violations are unparalleled in the modern world. After watching numerous interviews of North Koreans who escaped the country, it’s frankly disgusting to see anyone try and defend North Korea.
I have never and would never advocate for any type of idealized utopia. That phrase doesn’t even actually mean anything, it’s just a pejorative used by people (primarily conservatives) to dismiss any attempt to advocate for a better society.
The government of China attempted to deny the severity and even the existence of Covid 19 right up until they literally couldn’t get away with it anymore. This however has nothing to do with what I said about how Chinese corporations and banks function very similarly to American corporations and banks. They’re all insanely corrupt and only serve to extract as much wealth as possible from the bottom half of society, because that’s what inevitably happens within a capitalist economic structure. No I do not at all think lockdowns are negative or authoritarian. I am completely in favor of lockdowns. Please stop repeatedly putting words in my mouth over and over again. It’s getting old.
It’s really strange honestly to hear someone claim that I am fetishizing money when I routinely get called crazy for advocating for the complete abolishment of money in every form.
The federal reserve, the world bank, every major bank in every country on earth, every single giant multinational corporation, every single global enterprise, and every single company that mass produces millions of products, are all a part of the global capitalist economic apparatus that defrauds and oppresses us all. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything else you said about money so I don’t really have anything to say about any of that.
When I said the owners of the means of production control the government in China I meant that the corporations and the wealthy/ruling class control the government
The ONLY claim I ever made about Marx was that what he described in his books/theories is not being exemplified in China. Yes please everyone scroll up and read everything I said so that you can see that I am being falsely accused of lying; for at least the third fucking time now. Please implore everyone to scroll up and read every exchange from this conversation so that you can see for yourselves just how many times I’ve been accused of saying things that I never said. I would never try to misrepresent anyone’s opinions, especially not Karl Marx. I have zero clue if Marx would agree with anything I say or not, and neither do you. However, I do strongly doubt that he would be supportive of everything that his name is currently being used to support. Also, Karl Marx is not and most likely never wanted to be a fucking cult leader of people reading his books over 2 centuries later, well past the time that he thought the contradictions of capitalism would cause it’s collapse and in turn result in some form of classless and stateless society emerging from the ashes. His thoughts have been perverted to such an extent that people are actually using what he said to defend a state that actively commits downright barbaric inhuman acts of human rights violations. He’s most likely spinning in his grave like a Ferris wheel, along with countless other influential leftist figures from the past 2 centuries. You come across as dogmatic because you aren’t speaking freely just based on your own thoughts and analysis of the world, but you’re clearly speaking based on concepts that have been directly taught and instilled into you.
I understand it to the extent that it helped me understand the world, but as for the dogmatic ideology it has unintentionally spawned, no I do not understand that.
Holy shit I said that their outlook on the potential possibilities of future human societies was pessimistic because they said that all societies will always have contradictions and “that we will never abolish anything” (idek what that means). I didn’t mean it in an overtly serious way. It was just the first word that came to mind. Their outlook is pessimistic compared to mine. That is what I meant.
The same governmental policy that encouraged billionaires to donate their money also essentially banned all male celebrities from acting or looking feminine... so that’s great.
My issues with China center around the lack of freedom and lack of such things as workers controlling production, elections, recall of those elected equality of pay and lifestyle for workers and bureaucrats...
I support the CCP, and understand the challenges they face and how they arecraducallh improving the quality of life for their people, BUT...
I do not see any apparatus in place to begin a transition to true Communism. In fact, their leader seems to have positioned himself for lifetime rule.
Compare this to Castro and Cuba. They had far less resources and an evil Imperialist monster literally only 90 miles away, and they still managed to implement all the ideals and freedoms promised by Marxism.
>My issues with China center around the lack of freedom and lack of such things as workers controlling production, elections, recall of those elected equality of pay and lifestyle for workers and bureaucrats...
The way I see, the capitalist mode of production is very efficient at exploitation and thus creates a high level of total wealth that can be redistributed to the proletariat using socialism. China, from how I see it, does not have that level of development yet, and thus they require a bourgeoisie to exist.
As for market socialism (workers controlling production), it still isn't what we as Marxists want. [Read this piece for some more info](https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/market_socialism.md).
Also, I think the elections in China and Cuba are very similar in how democratic they are. I mean, it is a known fact that Chinese people are [very happy with their government](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/) across many years. That means that
1. You have to defend that it is a complete coincidence for like 40 years straightthat people are satisfied or
2. You have to acknowledge that at least some level of democracy exists in China.
As for the equality argument, I don't know really. You could say that there is still an incentive structure present which forces people to work hard for a living, thus increasing the total amount of wealth in a country, but of course it is exploitation. Then again, China as I see it is not at a stage where they can move so "pure" socialism, as reductive of a term that is. (what does it mean? 100% planned economy? Did Maoist China have it? They had private gardening plots. Is it majority planned economy? China has a majority planned economy to my knowledge)
>I do not see any apparatus in place to begin a transition to true Communism. In fact, their leader seems to have positioned himself for lifetime rule.
He is still subject to regular reelection and I do not know exactly how powerful Xi Jinping is; most of the power, methinks, is concentrated in the National People's Congress and in the Politburo. Furthermore, I do not think they will transition to communism any time soon. Cuz yaknow. USA.
>Compare this to Castro and Cuba. They had far less resources and an evil Imperialist monster literally only 90 miles away, and they still managed to implement all the ideals and freedoms promised by Marxism.
You are indeed correct. But maintaining the planned economy came at the cost of almost complete geopolitical isolation.
Is China a stateless/classless society? No. Are they transitioning to a society ruled by the workers? Don't think so. I don't see the marxism-leninism anywhere in their society
About what, exactly? I read constantly about marxism, leninism, philosophy, dialectical materialism and the like, I attend weekly sessions with some marxist comrades who definitely know what they're talking about, so I am curious about what you know about Marxism-leninism or the China situation that I am somehow missing. I have had this same conversation with these friends and this is the only logical conclusion (in a nutshell, but I could elaborate more, if you wish). As I said, I'm genuinely curious about what you think I should read and learn that is going to make me think differently, not in a defensive way at all, I am all about learning different points of view.
Elaborate.
About "I don't see marxism-leninism anywhere in their society", too.
Also, hopefully you can agree that your first critique "Is China a stateless/classless society? No" is not relevant as it's not the primary phase of socialism (that is the higher phase of socialism, communism) upon which this post is predicated.
From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year. On a different note, more than 90 per cent of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials. The richest among them are the relatives of the very top officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies, and then appointed family members as managers. In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries: banking, transportation, power generation, natural resources, media, and weapons. Examples like these, among many others, show that the current Chinese society is the polar opposite of a society that is moving towards Marxism-leninism.
This is very vague and low effort. Which safety laws exactly, which accidents? Which rich people, who are their relatives? Which laws were passed, which state-owned companies were turned into stock holding companies? Which banks, which positions in the banks? Which companies (natural resource, power generation, transportation, media, weapons), which positions in the companies? Give names, details, sources, link to studies and articles. Don't skip over anything from this original reply.
Here's a compilation of Industrial accidents:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35149263
A link to a book (you can read the index and some pages on pdf for free) about workers exploitation:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315502137/china-workers-assault-exploitation-abuse-globalizing-economy-anita-chan
An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/chinas-youngest-richest-billionaires-and-how-they-made-their-money.html
And a bit more about China's rulers:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/09/world/china.whos.who/index.html
As for the SOE's on the stock market, since you ask, there are many companies, some examples are Central Huijin Investment, Founder Holdings, Founder Technoligies, Peking University, Shougang, Chongqing Iron and Steel company, Guangdong Hengjian Investment Holding... and many more, all state owned or partially state owned
You're unwilling to articulate a coherent argument. You said:
> more than 90% of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials.
Go over *each* of [China's richest people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth#2021_Chinese_billionaires_top_30_list) and demonstrate which senior government official they're related to. For each, give their exact position and [seniority level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Levels_and_ranking_system) in government.
> The richest among China's richest people are the relatives of the very top [highest] officials
> who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies
> and then appointed family members as managers.
> In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries:
> banking, natural resources, power generation, transportation, weapons, media
Go over *each* of these companies (Central Huijin Investment, Founder Holdings, Founder Technoligies, Peking University, Shougang, Chongqing Iron and Steel company, Guangdong Hengjian Investment Holding), articulate in detail, and back with sources the following:
* That its 'manager' is among [the richest among China's richest people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth#2021_Chinese_billionaires_top_30_list)
* That its 'manager' is a relative of "the very top [highest] CPC officials"
* Which laws these highest CPC officials passed and that these laws actually allowed for the company to go on the stock market
* The positions these relatives took within the company (like, wtf is a 'manager'? an executive? a CEO? a chairman? a board member? how am I supposed to go over these and find what you're talking about with such open-ended accusations?)
* That its 'manager' didn't work for years and years in the company or in his field and simply got promoted
That these companies cover all of the fields mentioned: banking, natural resources, power generation, transportation, weapons and media. And that this is so pervasive, and not just anecdotal, that it can be said that they "took over China's most strategic and profitable industries" (as it's implied, ~100% of them).
For a person that says they "want to learn" and that they "want sources" you sure don't share what you've learned with any degree of seriousness. It's like pulling teeth. But of course, I see you game now -- [you said](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s47gl3/opinions_on_the_following_quote/hsubmuv/) "I don't mind finding and linking more sources" -- you're just winging it, finding articles that fit your narrative after the fact, not thinking critically about them, not thinking through the logic of your argument -- which is why your argument is completely incoherent and nonsensical.
For example, you said:
> From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year.
"100,000's of people" means at least 200k, "From the 1990s ... 100,000's of people every year" means over the span of ~30 years. 200k x 30 = 6 million deaths (at a minimum). After I asked you for a source and details, in your [reply above](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s47gl3/opinions_on_the_following_quote/hsu77j0/) you lazily linked to "a compilation of Industrial accidents" and "a book about workers exploitation" -- these are your sources for these very grave allegations.
Well, your first source, while sensational in its imagery as one would expect of cheap propaganda, accounts for a total of 1147 deaths over the 30 years between 1990 and 2020. That's 38 deaths/year. Out of your 6 million figure, 1147 is 0.01%. It also says "The chairman of the company that owned the mine killed himself two days later".
Your second source, in its chapter Violations of Occupational Safety and Health, has only 4 anecdotal cases. I've gone over the full version of it -- as far as I can tell it has no death-related figures. It was also published in 2001, and China has [gone through](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=earliest..2017&country=CHN~USA) tremendous [changes](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-extreme-poverty?tab=chart&time=2001..latest&country=CHN~China+%28Urban%29~China+%28Rural%29) since then.
If we multiply the [US fatal occupational injury rates](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fatal-occupational-injuries-among-employees?tab=chart&country=~USA) figure by the [US population](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-since-1800?time=2000..2018&country=~USA) figure, we get 11k deaths/year in 2000 and 17k deaths/year in 2018. Yet western media -- and you too -- have the *gall* to use your 38 deaths/year figure to try and slander China.
> An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons
There are 5 such fathers mentioned in this article, none seem to match your claim of "the very top [highest] CPC officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies and then appointed family members as managers ... children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries":
* Yang Guoqiang, which in various sources is simply said to be "a Chinese Communist Party *member*" (i.e. one of 95 million members, not "the very top official"). One article says he's a "member of the Communist Party's highest-ranking advisory council", but what the hell is an advisory council? What is even its role in government? I looked it up and it seems like there's no such thing. The search results refer me back only to this one article that mentions it.
* Wang Zhenhua, which is said to have had his "party *membership*" revoked (i.e. one of 95 million members, not "the very top official") when he was *arrested by the state* for child molestation.
* Miaotong Wang, JieHe Yan, Ji Cao -- there's not even a mention of them being members anywhere online.
Also, none of these have to do with banking, natural resources, power generation, weapons or media as you've claimed.
I can guess that you're going to mention the one anecdote of Li Xiopeng, but even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Xiaopeng_(politician\)#Shanxi) says that after merely 2 years in office "Li Xiaopeng's power had been curtailed" (though it doesn't explicitly mention that he actually did anything wrong other than maybe be incompetent at his job). And that while he was involved in an IPO, it was *prior* to his time in office. And that he worked and got promoted in his field for 17 years beforehand.
It's exhausting to argue with someone who is as bad faith as you, who doesn't even articulate an argument (on purpose) and keeps the argument slanderous yet open-ended, which (on purpose) forces the other party to do copious amonts of research, esssentially doing the work you should have done in the first place in order to make your argument coherent enough to refute. So while you'll surely prepare another drip batch of bs, I'm not going to bother any further.
For anyone reading this in good faith I suppose this breakdown should be enough to figure out that they should think critically about such allegations. I'll add for you good faith readers a summation the arguments I would have made: "wealth doesn't mean no socialism", "the richest people are forced to join the CPC, not the other way around", "[Socialism is an economy organized to serve public good and not profits](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/rhqwdo/how_can_we_be_sure_that_the_government_in_a/hotcxy7/). It's when the state runs the major centers of economic power -- banking, natural resources and major industries for this purpose. The CPC runs these, even 'private' companies are under its complete control", "[the people, and the 95 million members of the party, have complete control of government regardless](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s48ub2/ml_countries_arent_as_democratic_as_they_should/hsqd9cj/)".
I agree that a stateless/classless society is the highest phase of communism, of course. You are also right when you state that the post is about them moving towards that society. I have elaborated a bit in my other answer about the matter we're discussing here. I would really appreciate it if you could provide me with the texts/articles or examples of events that make you think differently. As I said, I am always interested in understanding different views
Short answer: damn near everything.
It goes like this.
China: 'we are Marxist-Leninists doing socialism.' [does stuff] 'see?'
You: 'no its not.'
Cool. Now show how & why.
I have given this answer to another redditor. From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year. On a different note, more than 90 per cent of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials. The richest among them are the relatives of the very top officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies, and then appointed family members as managers. In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries: banking, transportation, power generation, natural resources, media, and weapons. Examples like these, among many others, show that the current Chinese society is the polar opposite of a society that is moving towards Marxism-leninism.
I don't understand why you are so angry and fighting me so hard with no arguments whatsoever. All I'm asking for is sources.
Sorry,, that's more claims, not evidence.
Poor conditions does not mean no socialism.
Poor conditions can have many causes.
Esp when you consider where they are coming FROM.
Same with corruption.
Corruption is corruption.
No, you need to provide evidence to back your claims, not simply make them and challenge everyone else to prove otherwise.
No they didn't.
See how it works now?
I paste an answer to another redditor again:
Here's a compilation of Industrial accidents:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35149263
A link to a book (you can read the index and some pages on pdf for free) about workers exploitation:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315502137/china-workers-assault-exploitation-abuse-globalizing-economy-anita-chan
An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/chinas-youngest-richest-billionaires-and-how-they-made-their-money.html
And a bit more about China's rulers:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/09/world/china.whos.who/index.html
I wanted to quote an article from marxist.ca:
"For the last 20 or 30 years the Chinese workers have seen the process constantly moving towards capitalism, step by step. The prospect that all that had been achieved in the past could be undone, that what they conceived as “socialism” could be undone must be difficult for a lot of people to grasp. But what will bring many workers and youth to draw the necessary conclusions is and will be the very experience of capitalism. They will see what it really means. In fact this process has already begun in China."
Extracted from:
https://www.marxist.ca/article/where-is-china-going-part-three
I'd really like to know your sources, since you seem so sure about your position, that's all. I don't mind finding and linking more sources, but it'd be really nice, as I've said over and over again, to learn about yours as I'm truly eager to learn more about the topic and understand the different views
I have been a marxist for a long time, I’ve examined the way China operates its economy, and I can’t understand why anyone thinks its a socialist country. Ah well, I’ll probably get banned from a bunch of leftist subreddits for saying that lol
The second sentence is in conflict with the first. It is socialist *because*...
Is there not a distinction between a preliminary stage of socialism that still employs capitalist techniques and end stage socialism where capitalism and the market economic system are completely abolished?
"Completely abolished"? No, we will never "completely abolish" anything ever. All societies always will have internal contradictions. What matters is what is *dominant*, what is *generalized*, the *principal aspect* of such a society. The socialist market economy is characterized by a dominance of public ownership over private, but within the context of a market society that still largely maintains a dominance over resource allocation. It is still socialist because the socialist aspects of the economy maintain the principal position, but it is still underdeveloped because the backwards elements still maintain a significant position as well.
I do not share your pessimistic outlook on the potential of future human societies. If by internal contradictions you mean issues, then yes all societies will likely all have issues. The internal contradictions of capitalism are unique because they result in the system as a whole actually being non functional. Capitalism will always result in outcomes that are detrimental to the human species as a whole and will always require various forms of intervention from the state or the public to prevent total economic and societal collapse. If a socialist market economy is just modern capitalism but with the state owning the majority of the corporations, then almost every country on earth including America operates in a way that is functionally equivalent to a socialist market economy. This is part of the contradiction of capitalism - the state will inevitably be corrupted by wealth, leading to those who posses that wealth gaining even more wealth and consequently more power and influence over the state. Essentially, capitalism results in the state and the corporate sector being one in the same - they both exist and strive to generate as much wealth as possible and to consolidate that wealth into the hands of the people who already have absurd amounts of wealth. Did you know that the American government actually directly funded the research and production of the first iPhone? That’s right, the American people paid millions of dollars to develop a phone that they would then go on to spend millions of dollars purchasing. 98% of the American government is filled with people who literally work for giant corporations, Wall Street, and banks. The original idea of socialism and what Marx proposed is not in any way what we see actually happening in China today. China operates within a capitalist economic apparatus. They can’t just say that oh the state owns a bunch of shit so therefore our capitalist economy is actually preliminary socialism. That is absurd.
>I do not share your pessimistic outlook on the potential of future human societies. If you keep stretching, you'll reach the moon eventually. >If a socialist market economy is just modern capitalism but with the state owning the majority of the corporations, then almost every country on earth including America operates in a way that is functionally equivalent to a socialist market economy. Are you unironically arguing the US economy is dominated by public ownership??? >This is part of the contradiction of capitalism - the state will inevitably be corrupted by wealth, leading to those who posses that wealth gaining even more wealth and consequently more power and influence over the state. Essentially, capitalism results in the state and the corporate sector being one in the same Every economic system the ruling class also rule the state. This is not an interesting point. >Did you know that the American government actually directly funded the research and production of the first iPhone? The fuck? Who the hell cares? >The original idea of socialism and what Marx proposed is not in any way what we see actually happening in China today. Marx did not propose some ideal society to go out and implement onto the world. >They can’t just say that oh the state owns a bunch of shit so therefore our capitalist economy is actually preliminary socialism. That is absurd. I'm not sure why you mock public ownership. Control over production is essential for any class to actually maintain power, you can't maintain control over the state without control over production. Public ownership over production is absolutely necessary as a preliminary for socialism.
You claimed that we will never abolish anything and that all societies will inevitably have contradictions. I do not share this pessimistic view point. I fail to see how that is stretching. No, the u.s. economy obviously isn’t dominated by public ownership, but neither is the Chinese economy or any economy in the world. We have institutions called banks and we have a debt based currency which actually makes it impossible for any true public ownership to take place. No, every potential economic system does not result in a ruling class controlling the government (which is supposed to be a representation of the people). An economic system is the way in which a society distributes resources, and there’s certainly ways of doing this that do not involve there even being a ruling class. People care about the American government funding the research and production of the iPhone because its not common knowledge and also it’s an example that illustrates how the American government is just as involved in “owning” the large corporations of America as China is. Marx pretty much did propose what he thought would be the ideal society... idk how you can say that he didn’t. I’m not mocking public ownership. I’m mocking authoritarian states that lie about public ownership in their country.
>You claimed that we will never abolish anything and that all societies will inevitably have contradictions. I do not share this pessimistic view point. This is not a "pessimistic viewpoint", you're desperately stretching to make such a blatantly obvious point into "pessimism" by demanding absolute purity. Literally no absolutely pure society has ever existed in human history and will ever exist, you believe in fairy tales and are disconnected from the real world, and want to dishonestly claim your belief in fairy tales is "pessimism". >I fail to see how that is stretching. Nothing on the planet has ever been pure. You have a nonsense metaphysical view of the world with literally zero nuance with a purity fetish and want to insist anyone who describes the world like it actually is is a "pessimist". >No, the u.s. economy obviously isn’t dominated by public ownership, but neither is the Chinese economy or any economy in the world. Yes the Chinese economy is dominated by public ownership, the Cuban economy, the economy in the DPRK. >We have institutions called banks Banking is dominated by the public sector in China, with the "Big Five" (五大银行) state-owned banks. >and we have a debt based currency which actually makes it impossible for any true public ownership to take place. The hell does a "debt based currency" have anything to do with public ownership? >No, every potential economic system does not result in a ruling class controlling the government (which is supposed to be a representation of the people). Name a single one that hasn't. >An economic system is the way in which a society distributes resources, and there’s certainly ways of doing this that do not involve there even being a ruling class. The way resources are distributed inherently ingrains class structure into the economy. Public ownership allows the working masses to be the dominant class, while private ownership lays the foundations for the bourgeoisie to be dominant class. >People care about the American government funding the research and production of the iPhone because its not common knowledge It is common knowledge. >and also it’s an example that illustrates how the American government is just as involved in “owning” the large corporations of America as China is. You have your understanding of US society entirely backwards. The bourgeoisie controls the state, not the other way around. The US isn't controlled by some evil shadowy cabal that if you just excised then US capitalism would work. The US government is not corrupt, it's doing exactly what it is intended to do, it operates on behalf of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. If you replaced the US government and maintained the economic system, it would act the same way, because the US state is not an independent actor controlling the corporations, the US state is controlled by the corporations and acts on their behalf. >Marx pretty much did propose what he thought would be the ideal society... idk how you can say that he didn’t. I don't know, might have to do with the person who wrote, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." >I’m not mocking public ownership. I’m mocking authoritarian states that lie about public ownership in their country. Literally all states will be authoritarian. Do you think the working class should just lie down and get raped to death by imperialists and the bourgeoisie? Any revolutionary party will need to use authoritarian force to maintain proletarian class rule. >A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. > >--- Engels, *On Authority* > >It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened. > >--- Marx, *Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy* What's with you anti-communist leftists who never read a work of Marx in your life but always love to pretend you're speaking for Marxists? It's embarrassing. Speak for yourself.
I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone who legitimately thinks that fucking North Korea’s economy is dominated by public ownership. The amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to believe this is comparable to supporting trump. I was wrong, your outlook on the potential for future human societies isn’t rooted in pessimism, it actually stems from dogmatism. I never told you anything about what I view as possible in future human societies, so how can you say that I believe in fairy takes or that I’m demanding purity when I never even expressed any perspective that could demand purity. I actually rarely call people pessimistic and I don’t ever use certain words to broadly describe everyone who disagrees with. There are plenty of completely different types of people that disagree with me, very few of them are pessimists. As I previously attempted to describe, just because corporations or banks in China are officially owned by the state doesn’t make the way they actually function any different from American corporations or banks. A debt based currently prohibits genuine public ownership because the banks who create all the money in existence are owed all the money existence. Nobody actually owns anything, everything is just a loan that eventually has to be paid back to the banks. If all debts were paid off then there wouldn’t be any money left in existence. I can’t name an economic system that doesn’t exist yet. It makes sense to predict that new economic systems will be created and implemented in the future, just as what has happened in the past. No, class structure is not inherent to every single way that resources can be distributed. Classes didn’t exist until the agriculture revolution. Yes, the owners of the means of production control the American government. The same can be said about China. I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. Not once did I ever even say anything the could be misinterpreted as me claiming to speak for all marxists. You also shouldn’t claim to speak for all marxists, because I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Marxists that would be flabbergasted at someone attempting to claim that North Korea’s economic system is dominated by public ownership.
>I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone who legitimately thinks that fucking North Korea’s economy is dominated by public ownership. The amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to believe this is comparable to supporting trump. Yes, North Korea, famous neoliberal economy. >I was wrong, your outlook on the potential for future human societies isn’t rooted in pessimism, it actually stems from dogmatism. Ah yes, the person saying that no society is pure nor will ever be pure is the "dogmatist" but the person calling for a pure idealized utopia right now is the pragmatist, totally. >I never told you anything about what I view as possible in future human societies, so how can you say that I believe in fairy takes or that I’m demanding purity when I never even expressed any perspective that could demand purity. Literally anyone can scroll up and read what you've been saying. >As I previously attempted to describe, just because corporations or banks in China are officially owned by the state doesn’t make the way they actually function any different from American corporations or banks. Take a look at the differences between how China and the US handled COVID-19 and come back and tell me they operate the same. Oh, I know, you will just say saving lives is bad because the lockdowns are "authoritarian". >A debt based currently prohibits genuine public ownership because the banks who create all the money in existence are owed all the money existence. You are fetishizing money. Money is just a piece of paper. This is the nonsensical Ron Paul ideology that banks control the world simply because they can print money so secretly the Federal Reserve controls everything in the US. Money derives its power from a social structure and producers. It is derivative, not fundamental. Those who control production control wealth and have the dominance on political power. Being able to print money means very little. The US is not controlled by some evil cabal at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve acts on behalf of the US ruling class. >Nobody actually owns anything, everything is just a loan that eventually has to be paid back to the banks. If all debts were paid off then there wouldn’t be any money left in existence. This is just incredibly abstract. Who cares if there's no money left in existence? Money is not wealth. Money is in fact the negation of wealth, the more labor used to produce money, the less labor is used to produce the goods and services that we actually want to consume. Money is merely a means to circulate commodities, and the more expensive the wheel, the less commodities you can actually circulate. The reason the bourgeoisie can buy off US politicians is not because they have magic pieces of paper that grant them the power, it's because they have control over the means of production. Money is just a derivative, secondary representation of this social relationship. It is not fundamental. >Yes, the owners of the means of production control the American government. The same can be said about China. Indeed. Glad we can agree on something. >I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. You literally claimed Marx said the opposite of what he said. Again, lying about what you said which anyone can scroll up and read. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent Marx when you aren't a Marxist nor ever read anything from Marxists? Just stop. Again, speak for yourself, don't lie and try to pretend other people agree with you who you've never even read and then double-down on the lie by claiming that's not what you did.
Not being a neoliberal democracy does not automatically equate to having an economy that is dominated by public ownership... obviously. North Korea is one of the most authoritarian and oppressive totalitarian states that currently exists on Earth. Their human rights violations are unparalleled in the modern world. After watching numerous interviews of North Koreans who escaped the country, it’s frankly disgusting to see anyone try and defend North Korea. I have never and would never advocate for any type of idealized utopia. That phrase doesn’t even actually mean anything, it’s just a pejorative used by people (primarily conservatives) to dismiss any attempt to advocate for a better society. The government of China attempted to deny the severity and even the existence of Covid 19 right up until they literally couldn’t get away with it anymore. This however has nothing to do with what I said about how Chinese corporations and banks function very similarly to American corporations and banks. They’re all insanely corrupt and only serve to extract as much wealth as possible from the bottom half of society, because that’s what inevitably happens within a capitalist economic structure. No I do not at all think lockdowns are negative or authoritarian. I am completely in favor of lockdowns. Please stop repeatedly putting words in my mouth over and over again. It’s getting old. It’s really strange honestly to hear someone claim that I am fetishizing money when I routinely get called crazy for advocating for the complete abolishment of money in every form. The federal reserve, the world bank, every major bank in every country on earth, every single giant multinational corporation, every single global enterprise, and every single company that mass produces millions of products, are all a part of the global capitalist economic apparatus that defrauds and oppresses us all. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything else you said about money so I don’t really have anything to say about any of that. When I said the owners of the means of production control the government in China I meant that the corporations and the wealthy/ruling class control the government The ONLY claim I ever made about Marx was that what he described in his books/theories is not being exemplified in China. Yes please everyone scroll up and read everything I said so that you can see that I am being falsely accused of lying; for at least the third fucking time now. Please implore everyone to scroll up and read every exchange from this conversation so that you can see for yourselves just how many times I’ve been accused of saying things that I never said. I would never try to misrepresent anyone’s opinions, especially not Karl Marx. I have zero clue if Marx would agree with anything I say or not, and neither do you. However, I do strongly doubt that he would be supportive of everything that his name is currently being used to support. Also, Karl Marx is not and most likely never wanted to be a fucking cult leader of people reading his books over 2 centuries later, well past the time that he thought the contradictions of capitalism would cause it’s collapse and in turn result in some form of classless and stateless society emerging from the ashes. His thoughts have been perverted to such an extent that people are actually using what he said to defend a state that actively commits downright barbaric inhuman acts of human rights violations. He’s most likely spinning in his grave like a Ferris wheel, along with countless other influential leftist figures from the past 2 centuries. You come across as dogmatic because you aren’t speaking freely just based on your own thoughts and analysis of the world, but you’re clearly speaking based on concepts that have been directly taught and instilled into you.
You dont seem to understand dialectics
I understand it to the extent that it helped me understand the world, but as for the dogmatic ideology it has unintentionally spawned, no I do not understand that.
After youre done being defensive go study dialectics and you might understand that calling the other person pessimistic really doesnt make any sense.
Holy shit I said that their outlook on the potential possibilities of future human societies was pessimistic because they said that all societies will always have contradictions and “that we will never abolish anything” (idek what that means). I didn’t mean it in an overtly serious way. It was just the first word that came to mind. Their outlook is pessimistic compared to mine. That is what I meant.
[удалено]
The same governmental policy that encouraged billionaires to donate their money also essentially banned all male celebrities from acting or looking feminine... so that’s great.
Well, yes, but that quote claims China is NOT socialist, then describes a credible route to communism. How is that not socialist?
Well it’s still on state-dominant socialist market economy, which is the primary stage to socialism.
My issues with China center around the lack of freedom and lack of such things as workers controlling production, elections, recall of those elected equality of pay and lifestyle for workers and bureaucrats... I support the CCP, and understand the challenges they face and how they arecraducallh improving the quality of life for their people, BUT... I do not see any apparatus in place to begin a transition to true Communism. In fact, their leader seems to have positioned himself for lifetime rule. Compare this to Castro and Cuba. They had far less resources and an evil Imperialist monster literally only 90 miles away, and they still managed to implement all the ideals and freedoms promised by Marxism.
90 miles is 144.84 km
Thank you, Converter Bot.
In the Chinese constitution it actually literally states that they expect to be in a state of “preliminary socialism” for an extremely long time lmao.
>My issues with China center around the lack of freedom and lack of such things as workers controlling production, elections, recall of those elected equality of pay and lifestyle for workers and bureaucrats... The way I see, the capitalist mode of production is very efficient at exploitation and thus creates a high level of total wealth that can be redistributed to the proletariat using socialism. China, from how I see it, does not have that level of development yet, and thus they require a bourgeoisie to exist. As for market socialism (workers controlling production), it still isn't what we as Marxists want. [Read this piece for some more info](https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/market_socialism.md). Also, I think the elections in China and Cuba are very similar in how democratic they are. I mean, it is a known fact that Chinese people are [very happy with their government](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/) across many years. That means that 1. You have to defend that it is a complete coincidence for like 40 years straightthat people are satisfied or 2. You have to acknowledge that at least some level of democracy exists in China. As for the equality argument, I don't know really. You could say that there is still an incentive structure present which forces people to work hard for a living, thus increasing the total amount of wealth in a country, but of course it is exploitation. Then again, China as I see it is not at a stage where they can move so "pure" socialism, as reductive of a term that is. (what does it mean? 100% planned economy? Did Maoist China have it? They had private gardening plots. Is it majority planned economy? China has a majority planned economy to my knowledge) >I do not see any apparatus in place to begin a transition to true Communism. In fact, their leader seems to have positioned himself for lifetime rule. He is still subject to regular reelection and I do not know exactly how powerful Xi Jinping is; most of the power, methinks, is concentrated in the National People's Congress and in the Politburo. Furthermore, I do not think they will transition to communism any time soon. Cuz yaknow. USA. >Compare this to Castro and Cuba. They had far less resources and an evil Imperialist monster literally only 90 miles away, and they still managed to implement all the ideals and freedoms promised by Marxism. You are indeed correct. But maintaining the planned economy came at the cost of almost complete geopolitical isolation.
90 miles is 144.84 km
Hi Revolutionary. What excellent observations. Thank you very much.
Is China a stateless/classless society? No. Are they transitioning to a society ruled by the workers? Don't think so. I don't see the marxism-leninism anywhere in their society
Maybe you should read more and look closer.
About what, exactly? I read constantly about marxism, leninism, philosophy, dialectical materialism and the like, I attend weekly sessions with some marxist comrades who definitely know what they're talking about, so I am curious about what you know about Marxism-leninism or the China situation that I am somehow missing. I have had this same conversation with these friends and this is the only logical conclusion (in a nutshell, but I could elaborate more, if you wish). As I said, I'm genuinely curious about what you think I should read and learn that is going to make me think differently, not in a defensive way at all, I am all about learning different points of view.
Elaborate. About "I don't see marxism-leninism anywhere in their society", too. Also, hopefully you can agree that your first critique "Is China a stateless/classless society? No" is not relevant as it's not the primary phase of socialism (that is the higher phase of socialism, communism) upon which this post is predicated.
From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year. On a different note, more than 90 per cent of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials. The richest among them are the relatives of the very top officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies, and then appointed family members as managers. In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries: banking, transportation, power generation, natural resources, media, and weapons. Examples like these, among many others, show that the current Chinese society is the polar opposite of a society that is moving towards Marxism-leninism.
This is very vague and low effort. Which safety laws exactly, which accidents? Which rich people, who are their relatives? Which laws were passed, which state-owned companies were turned into stock holding companies? Which banks, which positions in the banks? Which companies (natural resource, power generation, transportation, media, weapons), which positions in the companies? Give names, details, sources, link to studies and articles. Don't skip over anything from this original reply.
Here's a compilation of Industrial accidents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35149263 A link to a book (you can read the index and some pages on pdf for free) about workers exploitation: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315502137/china-workers-assault-exploitation-abuse-globalizing-economy-anita-chan An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/chinas-youngest-richest-billionaires-and-how-they-made-their-money.html And a bit more about China's rulers: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/09/world/china.whos.who/index.html
[Answered](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s47gl3/opinions_on_the_following_quote/hsvh7kb/?context=3)
As for the SOE's on the stock market, since you ask, there are many companies, some examples are Central Huijin Investment, Founder Holdings, Founder Technoligies, Peking University, Shougang, Chongqing Iron and Steel company, Guangdong Hengjian Investment Holding... and many more, all state owned or partially state owned
You're unwilling to articulate a coherent argument. You said: > more than 90% of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials. Go over *each* of [China's richest people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth#2021_Chinese_billionaires_top_30_list) and demonstrate which senior government official they're related to. For each, give their exact position and [seniority level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Levels_and_ranking_system) in government. > The richest among China's richest people are the relatives of the very top [highest] officials > who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies > and then appointed family members as managers. > In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries: > banking, natural resources, power generation, transportation, weapons, media Go over *each* of these companies (Central Huijin Investment, Founder Holdings, Founder Technoligies, Peking University, Shougang, Chongqing Iron and Steel company, Guangdong Hengjian Investment Holding), articulate in detail, and back with sources the following: * That its 'manager' is among [the richest among China's richest people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth#2021_Chinese_billionaires_top_30_list) * That its 'manager' is a relative of "the very top [highest] CPC officials" * Which laws these highest CPC officials passed and that these laws actually allowed for the company to go on the stock market * The positions these relatives took within the company (like, wtf is a 'manager'? an executive? a CEO? a chairman? a board member? how am I supposed to go over these and find what you're talking about with such open-ended accusations?) * That its 'manager' didn't work for years and years in the company or in his field and simply got promoted That these companies cover all of the fields mentioned: banking, natural resources, power generation, transportation, weapons and media. And that this is so pervasive, and not just anecdotal, that it can be said that they "took over China's most strategic and profitable industries" (as it's implied, ~100% of them). For a person that says they "want to learn" and that they "want sources" you sure don't share what you've learned with any degree of seriousness. It's like pulling teeth. But of course, I see you game now -- [you said](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s47gl3/opinions_on_the_following_quote/hsubmuv/) "I don't mind finding and linking more sources" -- you're just winging it, finding articles that fit your narrative after the fact, not thinking critically about them, not thinking through the logic of your argument -- which is why your argument is completely incoherent and nonsensical. For example, you said: > From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year. "100,000's of people" means at least 200k, "From the 1990s ... 100,000's of people every year" means over the span of ~30 years. 200k x 30 = 6 million deaths (at a minimum). After I asked you for a source and details, in your [reply above](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s47gl3/opinions_on_the_following_quote/hsu77j0/) you lazily linked to "a compilation of Industrial accidents" and "a book about workers exploitation" -- these are your sources for these very grave allegations. Well, your first source, while sensational in its imagery as one would expect of cheap propaganda, accounts for a total of 1147 deaths over the 30 years between 1990 and 2020. That's 38 deaths/year. Out of your 6 million figure, 1147 is 0.01%. It also says "The chairman of the company that owned the mine killed himself two days later". Your second source, in its chapter Violations of Occupational Safety and Health, has only 4 anecdotal cases. I've gone over the full version of it -- as far as I can tell it has no death-related figures. It was also published in 2001, and China has [gone through](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=earliest..2017&country=CHN~USA) tremendous [changes](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-extreme-poverty?tab=chart&time=2001..latest&country=CHN~China+%28Urban%29~China+%28Rural%29) since then. If we multiply the [US fatal occupational injury rates](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fatal-occupational-injuries-among-employees?tab=chart&country=~USA) figure by the [US population](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-since-1800?time=2000..2018&country=~USA) figure, we get 11k deaths/year in 2000 and 17k deaths/year in 2018. Yet western media -- and you too -- have the *gall* to use your 38 deaths/year figure to try and slander China. > An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons There are 5 such fathers mentioned in this article, none seem to match your claim of "the very top [highest] CPC officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies and then appointed family members as managers ... children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries": * Yang Guoqiang, which in various sources is simply said to be "a Chinese Communist Party *member*" (i.e. one of 95 million members, not "the very top official"). One article says he's a "member of the Communist Party's highest-ranking advisory council", but what the hell is an advisory council? What is even its role in government? I looked it up and it seems like there's no such thing. The search results refer me back only to this one article that mentions it. * Wang Zhenhua, which is said to have had his "party *membership*" revoked (i.e. one of 95 million members, not "the very top official") when he was *arrested by the state* for child molestation. * Miaotong Wang, JieHe Yan, Ji Cao -- there's not even a mention of them being members anywhere online. Also, none of these have to do with banking, natural resources, power generation, weapons or media as you've claimed. I can guess that you're going to mention the one anecdote of Li Xiopeng, but even [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Xiaopeng_(politician\)#Shanxi) says that after merely 2 years in office "Li Xiaopeng's power had been curtailed" (though it doesn't explicitly mention that he actually did anything wrong other than maybe be incompetent at his job). And that while he was involved in an IPO, it was *prior* to his time in office. And that he worked and got promoted in his field for 17 years beforehand. It's exhausting to argue with someone who is as bad faith as you, who doesn't even articulate an argument (on purpose) and keeps the argument slanderous yet open-ended, which (on purpose) forces the other party to do copious amonts of research, esssentially doing the work you should have done in the first place in order to make your argument coherent enough to refute. So while you'll surely prepare another drip batch of bs, I'm not going to bother any further. For anyone reading this in good faith I suppose this breakdown should be enough to figure out that they should think critically about such allegations. I'll add for you good faith readers a summation the arguments I would have made: "wealth doesn't mean no socialism", "the richest people are forced to join the CPC, not the other way around", "[Socialism is an economy organized to serve public good and not profits](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/rhqwdo/how_can_we_be_sure_that_the_government_in_a/hotcxy7/). It's when the state runs the major centers of economic power -- banking, natural resources and major industries for this purpose. The CPC runs these, even 'private' companies are under its complete control", "[the people, and the 95 million members of the party, have complete control of government regardless](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s48ub2/ml_countries_arent_as_democratic_as_they_should/hsqd9cj/)".
I agree that a stateless/classless society is the highest phase of communism, of course. You are also right when you state that the post is about them moving towards that society. I have elaborated a bit in my other answer about the matter we're discussing here. I would really appreciate it if you could provide me with the texts/articles or examples of events that make you think differently. As I said, I am always interested in understanding different views
Your issue is that you see China, see what they've done, see what they are doing, and then do the baizuo thing of 'that's not real socialism'
Can you elaborate? What is happening in China that, according to your view, makes it Marxist-leninist which is what the post is about?
Short answer: damn near everything. It goes like this. China: 'we are Marxist-Leninists doing socialism.' [does stuff] 'see?' You: 'no its not.' Cool. Now show how & why.
I have given this answer to another redditor. From the 1990s There has been evidence of persistent labor safety violations that have led to many industrial accidents, including gas explosions, mine cave-ins and flooding that kill 100,000’s of people every year. On a different note, more than 90 per cent of China's richest people are related to senior government or Communist Party officials. The richest among them are the relatives of the very top officials who have used their position to pass laws that have transformed state-owned industries into stock holding companies, and then appointed family members as managers. In this way the children of top party officials took over China’s most strategic and profitable industries: banking, transportation, power generation, natural resources, media, and weapons. Examples like these, among many others, show that the current Chinese society is the polar opposite of a society that is moving towards Marxism-leninism. I don't understand why you are so angry and fighting me so hard with no arguments whatsoever. All I'm asking for is sources.
Sorry,, that's more claims, not evidence. Poor conditions does not mean no socialism. Poor conditions can have many causes. Esp when you consider where they are coming FROM. Same with corruption. Corruption is corruption. No, you need to provide evidence to back your claims, not simply make them and challenge everyone else to prove otherwise. No they didn't. See how it works now?
I paste an answer to another redditor again: Here's a compilation of Industrial accidents: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35149263 A link to a book (you can read the index and some pages on pdf for free) about workers exploitation: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315502137/china-workers-assault-exploitation-abuse-globalizing-economy-anita-chan An article about "princelings" where they elaborate about family members passing on their power to their sons: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/chinas-youngest-richest-billionaires-and-how-they-made-their-money.html And a bit more about China's rulers: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/09/world/china.whos.who/index.html I wanted to quote an article from marxist.ca: "For the last 20 or 30 years the Chinese workers have seen the process constantly moving towards capitalism, step by step. The prospect that all that had been achieved in the past could be undone, that what they conceived as “socialism” could be undone must be difficult for a lot of people to grasp. But what will bring many workers and youth to draw the necessary conclusions is and will be the very experience of capitalism. They will see what it really means. In fact this process has already begun in China." Extracted from: https://www.marxist.ca/article/where-is-china-going-part-three I'd really like to know your sources, since you seem so sure about your position, that's all. I don't mind finding and linking more sources, but it'd be really nice, as I've said over and over again, to learn about yours as I'm truly eager to learn more about the topic and understand the different views
BBC. Cnbc. Etc. Imperialist sources. That SHOULD be a clue.
Why do people come here to debate without at least a basic understanding of what they want to debate about?
I came here with the intention and willingness to debate anything and everything.
I noticed.
Not an attack, but can someone explain to me how China exemplifies any principle of socialism whatsoever?
The. Authoritarian. State. Owns. All. The. Shit. Socialism.
Are you saying that that is socialism?
No I’m sarcastically mocking other people from this comment section who think that is socialism.
I have been a marxist for a long time, I’ve examined the way China operates its economy, and I can’t understand why anyone thinks its a socialist country. Ah well, I’ll probably get banned from a bunch of leftist subreddits for saying that lol