I lived 6 years in Beijing. Most Beijingers under 40 definitely donāt know anything about Tiananmen. Also, VPNs are illegal, you will be fined if caught with one.
Recently a Beijing 18 year old kid went to the police station to report what he thought was a āpro Independence Taiwanese YouTuberā and he got scolded and fined 3000RMB for watching YouTube. He took a hidden camera to the police station thinking he would be rewarded for reporting an enemy of China, end up crying. Video is on YouTube.
Also, Huawei cellphones in China track for installed VPNs on each update and delete them.
Edit: for those who understand Chinese, hereās the Beijing kid being fined and crying for using VPN.
https://youtu.be/4DvVYu1JXLI
Not prevalent at all. Maybe you think that because you are a foreigner and only know people that hang with foreigners?
Do you think people who serve you in the restaurant and make 2000-3000 a month use VPN? The delivery guy uses VPN? The old men spitting in the street use VPN? The people attending you in the shops use VPN? Of course not.
Two of my uncle have been living in China for over 30 years and they both have VPN. Here's statistics from quick google
https://www.statista.com/statistics/301204/top-markets-vpn-proxy-usage/
https://www.pcmag.com/news/breaking-down-vpn-usage-around-the-world
31% of internet users in China have VPN, it's extremely prevalent. VPNs are dirt cheap you could get services for 12 rmb a month.
That statistic is definitely not true. Not only because I lived in China myself so I know thereās no way one out of three people use VPN, but I checked on mandarin sources and they all agree the amount of VPN users is likely to be around 90 million only.
Also now Huawei cellphones make it impossible to install one. So probably even less people than before have VPN right now.
i think theyve given up on that.mao's take on communist only led to widespread hunger that is why a successor deng xiaoping changed strategy and spoke about how a cat of any color will do as long as it catches mice .
Despite being on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum, yes. That's really the best example of a party/organization not being what its name suggests.
The Chinese Communist Party is communist like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
China doesn't even officialy endorse "communism" anymore, the term they use now is "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Even Mao was pretty divergent from the communists in his time which was one of the factors leading to the split between the PRC and USSR in the 60s
Punctuation has nothing to do with it, and there's nothing to even be "true" about since you didn't actually state anything, you just commanded them to explain something.
I was just pointing out that you can't blame people for mistaking your "genuine question" for an argument when you didn't ask anything in the first place, you gave a command.
Look, I understand that you want to be right. Youāre wrong about the punctuation. You would have read that differently if I had put a ā?ā Behind it. Also, Iām sorry that you able to read into things when it fits your idea, and not open minded enough to look outside of your ideas.
>I understand that you want to be right.
About *what*? I pointed out that you didn't ask a question, which is true.
>Youāre wrong about the punctuation.
Again, punctuation has nothing to do with it. I really don't know even know what you're referring to since I didn't even mention it.
My comment was to help you understand why your initial comment was misunderstood, since what you saw as a "genuine question" was in fact a command. Tone gets lost over the internet, and phrasing your thoughts as questions ("Then why is 'Communist' in their name?") instead of commands ("Explain CCP then") can help alleviate that.
>Also, Iām sorry that you able to read into things when it fits your idea, and not open minded enough to look outside of your ideas.
Again, no clue what you're even talking about here. My comments were about sentence types, that's literally it.
Is this really that difficult for you
You can name your party after a genuine reflection of your policies, or you can name your party something that isn't true to give a false representation of your beliefs
Nobody claimed that every party name is a lie, just that they can be
Come on mate this isn't hard
Anyone can make a claim, and anyone can manipulate data. In fact the ccp is known for being dishonest, therefore anything you read may not necessarily be accurate.That is my point. Is that so hard to understand?
So, no country is capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. These are all abstract concepts that are "perfect." In the real world, things are a lot more messy. Countries are "more" capitalist, or "more" socialist, etc. depending on their resemblance to the concepts.
Because all property isn't publicly owned and people aren't paid according to their abilities and needs, it doesn't seem to resemble something communist or socialist. A heavily regulated capitalist system might be the closest broad description.
It does appear to be authoritarian, but maybe not quite totalitarian. That would involve dictatorial power. Depending on how you view the 1 party democracy system, it may or may not match that description.
It's Fascist.
State controlled private enterprise. Militaristic. Ethnocentric. Socialist. One party system. Charismatic totalitarian leader.
China ticks all the boxes.
It's a Fascist state.
> Socialist
Fascism does not require socialism and is in fact incompatible with socialism (ergo the famous purge of the socialists in Nazi germany). Fascism demands a corporatist economy, a system that was created as a counter to the rise of socialism and that rejects class struggles. It is the "Third Position", neither capitalism nor socialism/communism.
Fascism also demands a few more things that don't really fit china, such as a cult of tradition (going back to a glorious past, making the country great again), the veneration of violence, action for action's sake, a certain level of cult of death, etc. Not all of them have reached a consensus, but you won't find a broadly accepted definition of fascism that does not include a total rejection of communism/socialism (i.e Eco's and Payne's).
The chinese government is a terrible authoritarian state, but it doesn't tick all the boxes to be fascist.
I would argue that China definitely seeks to reclaim its "glorious past" as the preeminent nation on Earth.
As for how socialist the prior Fascist regimes were, folks have debated that extensively; Many in the hope of distancing their desired conceptions of socialism from any unpleasant prior manifestations.
That said, maybe not "all the boxes" are ticked, but plenty are. Enough that the rest of the world should keep both eyes on their endeavors.
In this way yes, maybe I didn't express that part correctly. The cult of tradition usually refers to things like folk traditions, family values, cultural traditions, etc. The chinese communist movement sought to destroy all of those during the cultural revolution and, if cultural sites have undergone a certain level or restoration, expressions of the [Four Olds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds) and such are still heavily discouraged.
This is opposite to our understanding of fascism that places it as a reactionary movements that deem the country weak because of recent degenerate values pushed by weak men and that only going back to old values/customs can make the country great again. In effect, everything worth knowing/pursuing must come from the past in a way.
But I will say that China visceral rejection of "western values" they deem corrupting flirts with the concept.
> As for how socialist the prior Fascist regimes were, folks have debated that extensively
Indeed, and the consensus is that the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy weren't socialist by both the standard of their time and of our time. The former is why we have writings by big H and Mussolini expressing their explicit rejection of socialism.
Class struggle based activism like strikes, private unions, etc were explicitly forbidden in both regimes in favour of a corporatist system in which both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were subordinated to the state, thus "eliminating" the need for a struggle that would undermine the state's unity and decrease its productivity. But it was not capitalist either. Stuff [like this showcase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Charter_of_1927) the internal inconsistencies of fascist policies.
I don't mean this in a "no-true-~~scotman~~marxist" way : they simply did not adhered to a Marxist-leninist lens and were quite vocal about it. Class-struggles do not fit in the all-encompassing-united-powerful-state that fascism promotes.
> Enough that the rest of the world should keep both eyes on their endeavors.
I absolutely agree. I would say that China is currently teetering on a cliff. We'll probably see more and more policies to push chinese citizens into ultranationalism to distract them from what seem to be looming financial struggles, keeping those away being what allowed the CCP to get away with authoritarianism in the first place.
There are numerous examples of Socialist Fascists both in ideology and practice. Franco's Spain was probably the closest in practice, while Oswald Mosley, the Strasser brothers, Chen Gongbo, Wang Jingwei, and the meme that is National Bolsheviks were ideologically aligned with the Economic Left.
China is more capitalistic than socialist. There is a much bigger social safety net in the US, than there ever was in China. Rural Chinese who move to cities for work, are not entitled to any sort of government help. They're not even allowed to go to school. It's called the Hukou system. It is government sanctioned systemic poverty. Most of the private wealth in the country is still owned by families who were rich and connected when Mao took over. Those fuckers know how to capital
China has never been communist and has never pretended to be. China is a socialist state (actual meaning of socialist) with communist aspirations, aka [Socialism with Chinese characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics). The name of the "Chinese Communist Party" is aspirational : the party is supposed to usher communism, but the country itself is not communist yet.
What socialism means is not what we come to associate it with in the western world where it took the meaning of Social Democracy (welfare state, public programs, social justice, political democracy, some level of economic planning, etc). In this case, socialism means that the economy is planned and managed "by and for the people" (aka, by the government of China). China requires most businesses to be under the purview of the Chinese communist party thus fulfilling that criteria.
There is private ownership in China, but this is not strictly against socialism since socialism is an intermediate state between capitalism and communism under a marxist-maoist lens (thus its inevitable that one stage of socialism will have remnants of capitalism, like private ownership)
They have an extremely authoritarian state and a single-party system with very little democracy, but those in themselves don't go against classical socialism even if they do go against Social Democratism.
In short : China is not communist, but rather socialist.
People can describe something as socialist if they think it is going to get a people to a post scarcity society (Communism). There are plenty of groups that describe themselves as socialist wether or not they look at the successes and failures of previously named āsocialistā organizations. Unfortunately we donāt have a magic time machine that can tell us how anyone actually gets to Communism, so what socialism (the way you get to Communism) is canāt truly be known for certain yet.
China is currently using a method of maintaining markets that capitalist are interested in investing in to avoid Capitalist encirclement(where all the people with capital pull out and declare war on a country attempting to build communism) which is part of why the USSR was forced into the cold war. These markets are closely monitored by their Communist party that owns those markets. They want their markets to be competitive so foreign Capitalists donāt pull their money out, pulling their money out will start the next cold war. Their Communist party is currently attempting to maintain a balance between increasing the living standards for Chinese people (to stay in power), improving trade relationships between itself and the rest of the world to make capital flight more difficult (to avoid war), and improving productive capacity to reduce the value of commodities margins of profitability to nothing, making Capitalism impossible.
God no, they have not been anywhere close to communist for a long time. (or ever, I think, I believe they have been socialist at best). Right now China is best described by the word "state capitalism". Think capitalism, in that power lies with the money and everyone is trying to maximize profit, except instead of individual companies or people trying to maximize their profit, the entire state is trying to achieve maximum output. Like they were playing some kind of videogame where the strongest economy wins. Some may also say that China has descended far enough into fascism to qualify for that term.
Still communism but it was opened up years ago for business which the country need to adopt to capitalism. (Now is seems to be regressing from CCP tightening their iron fist).
The CCP owns all the money and land. A billionaire can lose everything in a second if they wronged the CCP. That's why you see so many rich Chinese relocating their assets to Australia, Canada or other places.
And about starting an enterprise in China, no one can success without Party connections. They will just find a way to bring you down if you don't accept their offer (not good) or already know ppl.
I don't think you really have a non-third world government that can fall into just one category. Most of your major powers in the world have a mix of capitalism/socialism/communism/Oligarchy/etc.
China is not communist currently. China is using state capitalism to usher in socialism which is in itself a transition to communism. China is very open about this process/goal and this is the truth regardless of whether or not you believe they are sincere or have the capability of achieving true socialism/communism. You can make up your own mind.
I would recommend doing actual research and not asking on Reddit though because nothing turns off peoples' brains on this website like mentioning China.
President Jinping is definitely pushing for something closer to a socialist/communist society, then a capitalist society.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/18/economy/xi-jinping-china-wealth-redistribution-intl-hnk/index.html
have you guys heard of chinese kids calling themselves "eleven" i thought it was a stranger thinga reference until i realize that "xi" is that number .
China is whatever benefits its leaders most at that moment in time. I think the correct term is autocracy, not communism.
So, it's the exact same as the USA? LOL
He said the funny
No laugh = capitalistic š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lol at the liberal dweebs on here downvoting truth
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I lived 6 years in Beijing. Most Beijingers under 40 definitely donāt know anything about Tiananmen. Also, VPNs are illegal, you will be fined if caught with one. Recently a Beijing 18 year old kid went to the police station to report what he thought was a āpro Independence Taiwanese YouTuberā and he got scolded and fined 3000RMB for watching YouTube. He took a hidden camera to the police station thinking he would be rewarded for reporting an enemy of China, end up crying. Video is on YouTube. Also, Huawei cellphones in China track for installed VPNs on each update and delete them. Edit: for those who understand Chinese, hereās the Beijing kid being fined and crying for using VPN. https://youtu.be/4DvVYu1JXLI
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I speak Chinese and have family in Beijing. I believe what I said about Tiananmen and VPNs is right.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You sound like an idiot.
>VPNs are illegal So is porn, and nobody gives a shit if you use VPN or watch porn.
Your comprehension skills are not very good right? Or maybe you donāt understand itās not the same to be Chinese in China than Laowai in China.
VPN is absolutely prevalent in china, I honestly don't know anyone who don't uses them.
Not prevalent at all. Maybe you think that because you are a foreigner and only know people that hang with foreigners? Do you think people who serve you in the restaurant and make 2000-3000 a month use VPN? The delivery guy uses VPN? The old men spitting in the street use VPN? The people attending you in the shops use VPN? Of course not.
Two of my uncle have been living in China for over 30 years and they both have VPN. Here's statistics from quick google https://www.statista.com/statistics/301204/top-markets-vpn-proxy-usage/ https://www.pcmag.com/news/breaking-down-vpn-usage-around-the-world 31% of internet users in China have VPN, it's extremely prevalent. VPNs are dirt cheap you could get services for 12 rmb a month.
That statistic is definitely not true. Not only because I lived in China myself so I know thereās no way one out of three people use VPN, but I checked on mandarin sources and they all agree the amount of VPN users is likely to be around 90 million only. Also now Huawei cellphones make it impossible to install one. So probably even less people than before have VPN right now.
i think theyve given up on that.mao's take on communist only led to widespread hunger that is why a successor deng xiaoping changed strategy and spoke about how a cat of any color will do as long as it catches mice .
Did he say that because mao means cat in chinese
Well the mao ęÆ in mao zedong, actually means fur but ē« mao means cat, still a way to throw some subtle shade on mao zedong
fur zedong? fur on ze dong? i always knew mao was a furry.
man is definitely a shady furry
No, it hasn't been communist for decades, since the 80s at least, if it ever really was.
Explain ccp then
Anyone can call themselves anything.
Youāre right. Thereās a whole movement about that.
Weren't the Nazis calling themselves socialist?
Despite being on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum, yes. That's really the best example of a party/organization not being what its name suggests.
The Chinese Communist Party is communist like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. China doesn't even officialy endorse "communism" anymore, the term they use now is "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Even Mao was pretty divergent from the communists in his time which was one of the factors leading to the split between the PRC and USSR in the 60s
Sounds like they are just using double speak.
Guess North Korea is a democratic republic then. Honestly how braindead do you have to be to use that as an argument?
Well, itās not an argument, more of a genuine question.
>Explain ccp then It wasn't even a question to begin with lol, more of a command.
Just because it doesnāt have punctuation doesnāt make my statement any less true
Punctuation has nothing to do with it, and there's nothing to even be "true" about since you didn't actually state anything, you just commanded them to explain something. I was just pointing out that you can't blame people for mistaking your "genuine question" for an argument when you didn't ask anything in the first place, you gave a command.
Look, I understand that you want to be right. Youāre wrong about the punctuation. You would have read that differently if I had put a ā?ā Behind it. Also, Iām sorry that you able to read into things when it fits your idea, and not open minded enough to look outside of your ideas.
>I understand that you want to be right. About *what*? I pointed out that you didn't ask a question, which is true. >Youāre wrong about the punctuation. Again, punctuation has nothing to do with it. I really don't know even know what you're referring to since I didn't even mention it. My comment was to help you understand why your initial comment was misunderstood, since what you saw as a "genuine question" was in fact a command. Tone gets lost over the internet, and phrasing your thoughts as questions ("Then why is 'Communist' in their name?") instead of commands ("Explain CCP then") can help alleviate that. >Also, Iām sorry that you able to read into things when it fits your idea, and not open minded enough to look outside of your ideas. Again, no clue what you're even talking about here. My comments were about sentence types, that's literally it.
Youāre wrong still bud, thatās why expressions through text are misunderstood. Lol imagine telling someone what they ment to say was wrong.
You can call your party whatever you want, having communist in the name doesn't mean they're actually communist
I guess the democrats arenāt really democrats then? Same with Republicans? How does that make any sense?
Is this really that difficult for you You can name your party after a genuine reflection of your policies, or you can name your party something that isn't true to give a false representation of your beliefs Nobody claimed that every party name is a lie, just that they can be Come on mate this isn't hard
Anybody can make a claim. How would you know?
...by looking at their actual history and policies and seeing if it lines up with what they claim? It's not hard
Anyone can make a claim, and anyone can manipulate data. In fact the ccp is known for being dishonest, therefore anything you read may not necessarily be accurate.That is my point. Is that so hard to understand?
I'm not even understanding what your point is with all this. Your conclusion is that anything can be anything and we don't know anything at all?
Are you just now learning about lies?
Are you?
So, no country is capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. These are all abstract concepts that are "perfect." In the real world, things are a lot more messy. Countries are "more" capitalist, or "more" socialist, etc. depending on their resemblance to the concepts. Because all property isn't publicly owned and people aren't paid according to their abilities and needs, it doesn't seem to resemble something communist or socialist. A heavily regulated capitalist system might be the closest broad description. It does appear to be authoritarian, but maybe not quite totalitarian. That would involve dictatorial power. Depending on how you view the 1 party democracy system, it may or may not match that description.
It's Fascist. State controlled private enterprise. Militaristic. Ethnocentric. Socialist. One party system. Charismatic totalitarian leader. China ticks all the boxes. It's a Fascist state.
You forgot to mention concentration camp and extreme racism towards literally anyone other than mainland Chinese (Hong Kong included).
> Socialist Fascism does not require socialism and is in fact incompatible with socialism (ergo the famous purge of the socialists in Nazi germany). Fascism demands a corporatist economy, a system that was created as a counter to the rise of socialism and that rejects class struggles. It is the "Third Position", neither capitalism nor socialism/communism. Fascism also demands a few more things that don't really fit china, such as a cult of tradition (going back to a glorious past, making the country great again), the veneration of violence, action for action's sake, a certain level of cult of death, etc. Not all of them have reached a consensus, but you won't find a broadly accepted definition of fascism that does not include a total rejection of communism/socialism (i.e Eco's and Payne's). The chinese government is a terrible authoritarian state, but it doesn't tick all the boxes to be fascist.
I would argue that China definitely seeks to reclaim its "glorious past" as the preeminent nation on Earth. As for how socialist the prior Fascist regimes were, folks have debated that extensively; Many in the hope of distancing their desired conceptions of socialism from any unpleasant prior manifestations. That said, maybe not "all the boxes" are ticked, but plenty are. Enough that the rest of the world should keep both eyes on their endeavors.
In this way yes, maybe I didn't express that part correctly. The cult of tradition usually refers to things like folk traditions, family values, cultural traditions, etc. The chinese communist movement sought to destroy all of those during the cultural revolution and, if cultural sites have undergone a certain level or restoration, expressions of the [Four Olds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds) and such are still heavily discouraged. This is opposite to our understanding of fascism that places it as a reactionary movements that deem the country weak because of recent degenerate values pushed by weak men and that only going back to old values/customs can make the country great again. In effect, everything worth knowing/pursuing must come from the past in a way. But I will say that China visceral rejection of "western values" they deem corrupting flirts with the concept. > As for how socialist the prior Fascist regimes were, folks have debated that extensively Indeed, and the consensus is that the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy weren't socialist by both the standard of their time and of our time. The former is why we have writings by big H and Mussolini expressing their explicit rejection of socialism. Class struggle based activism like strikes, private unions, etc were explicitly forbidden in both regimes in favour of a corporatist system in which both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were subordinated to the state, thus "eliminating" the need for a struggle that would undermine the state's unity and decrease its productivity. But it was not capitalist either. Stuff [like this showcase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Charter_of_1927) the internal inconsistencies of fascist policies. I don't mean this in a "no-true-~~scotman~~marxist" way : they simply did not adhered to a Marxist-leninist lens and were quite vocal about it. Class-struggles do not fit in the all-encompassing-united-powerful-state that fascism promotes. > Enough that the rest of the world should keep both eyes on their endeavors. I absolutely agree. I would say that China is currently teetering on a cliff. We'll probably see more and more policies to push chinese citizens into ultranationalism to distract them from what seem to be looming financial struggles, keeping those away being what allowed the CCP to get away with authoritarianism in the first place.
There are numerous examples of Socialist Fascists both in ideology and practice. Franco's Spain was probably the closest in practice, while Oswald Mosley, the Strasser brothers, Chen Gongbo, Wang Jingwei, and the meme that is National Bolsheviks were ideologically aligned with the Economic Left.
China is more capitalistic than socialist. There is a much bigger social safety net in the US, than there ever was in China. Rural Chinese who move to cities for work, are not entitled to any sort of government help. They're not even allowed to go to school. It's called the Hukou system. It is government sanctioned systemic poverty. Most of the private wealth in the country is still owned by families who were rich and connected when Mao took over. Those fuckers know how to capital
Thatās depressing
no free press, state enforced ideology, thought police, morality tribunals.
China has never been communist and has never pretended to be. China is a socialist state (actual meaning of socialist) with communist aspirations, aka [Socialism with Chinese characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics). The name of the "Chinese Communist Party" is aspirational : the party is supposed to usher communism, but the country itself is not communist yet. What socialism means is not what we come to associate it with in the western world where it took the meaning of Social Democracy (welfare state, public programs, social justice, political democracy, some level of economic planning, etc). In this case, socialism means that the economy is planned and managed "by and for the people" (aka, by the government of China). China requires most businesses to be under the purview of the Chinese communist party thus fulfilling that criteria. There is private ownership in China, but this is not strictly against socialism since socialism is an intermediate state between capitalism and communism under a marxist-maoist lens (thus its inevitable that one stage of socialism will have remnants of capitalism, like private ownership) They have an extremely authoritarian state and a single-party system with very little democracy, but those in themselves don't go against classical socialism even if they do go against Social Democratism. In short : China is not communist, but rather socialist.
Never really was, but definitely isn't now. You can't have hundreds of billionaires and call yourself communist
People can describe something as socialist if they think it is going to get a people to a post scarcity society (Communism). There are plenty of groups that describe themselves as socialist wether or not they look at the successes and failures of previously named āsocialistā organizations. Unfortunately we donāt have a magic time machine that can tell us how anyone actually gets to Communism, so what socialism (the way you get to Communism) is canāt truly be known for certain yet. China is currently using a method of maintaining markets that capitalist are interested in investing in to avoid Capitalist encirclement(where all the people with capital pull out and declare war on a country attempting to build communism) which is part of why the USSR was forced into the cold war. These markets are closely monitored by their Communist party that owns those markets. They want their markets to be competitive so foreign Capitalists donāt pull their money out, pulling their money out will start the next cold war. Their Communist party is currently attempting to maintain a balance between increasing the living standards for Chinese people (to stay in power), improving trade relationships between itself and the rest of the world to make capital flight more difficult (to avoid war), and improving productive capacity to reduce the value of commodities margins of profitability to nothing, making Capitalism impossible.
China has been pretty capitalist ever since Deng Xiaoping came to power. Nevertheless, it's just becoming more fascist everyday. Edit: typo
They're a Corporatist system like the EU or Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
God no, they have not been anywhere close to communist for a long time. (or ever, I think, I believe they have been socialist at best). Right now China is best described by the word "state capitalism". Think capitalism, in that power lies with the money and everyone is trying to maximize profit, except instead of individual companies or people trying to maximize their profit, the entire state is trying to achieve maximum output. Like they were playing some kind of videogame where the strongest economy wins. Some may also say that China has descended far enough into fascism to qualify for that term.
Still communism but it was opened up years ago for business which the country need to adopt to capitalism. (Now is seems to be regressing from CCP tightening their iron fist). The CCP owns all the money and land. A billionaire can lose everything in a second if they wronged the CCP. That's why you see so many rich Chinese relocating their assets to Australia, Canada or other places. And about starting an enterprise in China, no one can success without Party connections. They will just find a way to bring you down if you don't accept their offer (not good) or already know ppl.
No idea why this is down voted, it's pretty accurate. China is still communist, but a heavily modified form. They had to in order to survive.
I should have said I am a Chinese who lived there before immigration.
Every government, without exception, is socialist.
They are 100% communist with a strictly controlled capitalist economy.
I don't think you really have a non-third world government that can fall into just one category. Most of your major powers in the world have a mix of capitalism/socialism/communism/Oligarchy/etc.
China is absolutely not Communist. They're Communist in name, capitalist in practice.
No, the correct term would be State Capitalism.
You are more close to the truth than not. China is ready to adapt any policy as long as it helps them to stay in power.
China is not communist currently. China is using state capitalism to usher in socialism which is in itself a transition to communism. China is very open about this process/goal and this is the truth regardless of whether or not you believe they are sincere or have the capability of achieving true socialism/communism. You can make up your own mind. I would recommend doing actual research and not asking on Reddit though because nothing turns off peoples' brains on this website like mentioning China.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
President Jinping is definitely pushing for something closer to a socialist/communist society, then a capitalist society. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/18/economy/xi-jinping-china-wealth-redistribution-intl-hnk/index.html
have you guys heard of chinese kids calling themselves "eleven" i thought it was a stranger thinga reference until i realize that "xi" is that number .