From what I can tell china is “communist” on the basis of majority “public” (state) ownership of the means of production (they tried full public (state) ownership under mao, and concluded that in china’s case it would just limit socialism to “poverty socialism”, where you may have the moral high ground in principle but in reality the people are starving, or so the narrative goes), and the liberation of productive forces of a large amount of people, from low income jobs to higher income jobs, sometimes using tools like automation and using aforementioned ownership of the means of production to make it be. democratic participation seems to exist too, just not in a western liberal democratic way where parties fight against each other, but rather where internal factions inside the communist party and a few associated parties fight each other, and where change must come from within. china has genuinely, using its own methods, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of dead end poverty, while also defending against hostilities from the west. it’s impressive what happened, even if china has also simultaneously committed atrocities, violates human rights with for example their handling of the uyghur muslims, and still has millions of people struggling, for example migrant workers in factories who have basically no future, or the ubiquitous delivery driver who gets paid fuck all. all in all it’s a very mixed bag, but it’s not all bad.
of course better systems are possible, but they basically built this system “in a cave with a box of scraps” to quote the iron man movie.
democratic participation seems to exist too, just not in a western liberal democratic way where parties fight against each other, but rather where internal factions inside the communist party and a few associated parties fight each other, and where change must come from within.
You might as well say democratic participation existed in the Soviet Union.
china has genuinely, using its own methods, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of dead end poverty,
Yes, by [checks notes] adopting a capitalist economic regime in the 90s and creating massive and rapidly rising inequality.
‘Market’ is separate from ‘Stock Market’. The Stock Market is a specifically capitalist financial instrument and innovation whose entire purpose is to facilitate private ownership of the means of production by an investor class - ie, capitalism.
‘Slave economy’ is not mutually exclusive with capitalism.
The economy of the early Roman Empire is a kind of proto-mercantilist proto-capitalist position wherein both advanced investor ownership (such as legalistic forms of corporate personhood, limited liability firms, and, by some arguments, joint-stock companies) and traditional economic forms co-existed, not unlike 18th century Russia.
as it is I can’t tell you whether the Chinese economy is capitalist or not. public ownership dominates the economy, and a stock market does exist, but what it does I can’t tell you. just knowing what it’s called doesn’t do much for me. I have yet to read a book about the Chinese economy that would explain it to me. the other aspect about china I was interested in though is that they do use Marxist contradiction analysis a lot, either to solve or create problems.
… the majority of China’s GDP and employment is produced by private companies; many of the state enterprises in the remainder offer stock and dividends to private investors like private companies do.
and a stock market does exist, but what it does I can’t tell you.
I do know that stock markets trade in the ownership of companies, but to what end it’s being used or whether it has any interesting features I can’t tell you. I didn’t know about the GDP, but I was going from the top 100 Chinese company’s public ownership share (the majority of top 100 companies are majority state owned, plus an additional ~15% that’s classified as mixed ownership, between 10% to 50% state ownership). that’s a bit misguided of me and I apologize.
From what I can tell china is “communist” on the basis of majority “public” (state) ownership of the means of production (they tried full public (state) ownership under mao, and concluded that in china’s case it would just limit socialism to “poverty socialism”, where you may have the moral high ground in principle but in reality the people are starving, or so the narrative goes), and the liberation of productive forces of a large amount of people, from low income jobs to higher income jobs, sometimes using tools like automation and using aforementioned ownership of the means of production to make it be. democratic participation seems to exist too, just not in a western liberal democratic way where parties fight against each other, but rather where internal factions inside the communist party and a few associated parties fight each other, and where change must come from within. china has genuinely, using its own methods, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of dead end poverty, while also defending against hostilities from the west. it’s impressive what happened, even if china has also simultaneously committed atrocities, violates human rights with for example their handling of the uyghur muslims, and still has millions of people struggling, for example migrant workers in factories who have basically no future, or the ubiquitous delivery driver who gets paid fuck all. all in all it’s a very mixed bag, but it’s not all bad.
of course better systems are possible, but they basically built this system “in a cave with a box of scraps” to quote the iron man movie.
You might as well say democratic participation existed in the Soviet Union.
Yes, by [checks notes] adopting a capitalist economic regime in the 90s and creating massive and rapidly rising inequality.
Truly a stunning repudiation of capitalism.
let’s just say there’s way more nuance there, not every market economy is a capitalist market economy
Ah, the People’s Stock Market, the People’s Investors, and the People’s Billionaires. Of course.
ancient Rome had a market and wasn’t a capitalist economy but rather a slave economy, for example
‘Market’ is separate from ‘Stock Market’. The Stock Market is a specifically capitalist financial instrument and innovation whose entire purpose is to facilitate private ownership of the means of production by an investor class - ie, capitalism.
‘Slave economy’ is not mutually exclusive with capitalism.
The economy of the early Roman Empire is a kind of proto-mercantilist proto-capitalist position wherein both advanced investor ownership (such as legalistic forms of corporate personhood, limited liability firms, and, by some arguments, joint-stock companies) and traditional economic forms co-existed, not unlike 18th century Russia.
as it is I can’t tell you whether the Chinese economy is capitalist or not. public ownership dominates the economy, and a stock market does exist, but what it does I can’t tell you. just knowing what it’s called doesn’t do much for me. I have yet to read a book about the Chinese economy that would explain it to me. the other aspect about china I was interested in though is that they do use Marxist contradiction analysis a lot, either to solve or create problems.
… the majority of China’s GDP and employment is produced by private companies; many of the state enterprises in the remainder offer stock and dividends to private investors like private companies do.
… it trades in ownership of firms.
I do know that stock markets trade in the ownership of companies, but to what end it’s being used or whether it has any interesting features I can’t tell you. I didn’t know about the GDP, but I was going from the top 100 Chinese company’s public ownership share (the majority of top 100 companies are majority state owned, plus an additional ~15% that’s classified as mixed ownership, between 10% to 50% state ownership). that’s a bit misguided of me and I apologize.