A socialist society retains capitalist contradictions by its very nature because socialism is the transitional stage of development when the working class takes power, but existing relations of production have not yet been abolished. This is precisely what we see in China today. There are capitalists, they do exploit people, and that is a real contradiction within Chinese society. However, that’s different from saying that these people run the society the way they do in capitalist countries. Saying China is capitalist because it allows a limited form of capitalism to exist because it’s seen as useful for development, is like saying Canada is communist because it has public healthcare.
I’m not sure what your argument is then. If you accept that it is a socialist society, then you also have to realize that it must have these contradictions which are the nature of such a society.
I was saying that it must be disappointing to see to a lot of people. They might not be as well versed in the science of why billionaires are necessary etc.
Nobody here is saying billionaires are necessary to exist. They are a product of specific historic and material conditions China found itself in. They chose to accept the problems opening up would bring because they judged that economic relations with the west would outweigh the downsides. It’s impossible to look at how China managed to develop today and argue that it was a wrong decision. Opening up allowed China to rapidly catch up technologically with the west, and to develop peacefully instead of having to devote huge amounts of resources to the military the way USSR was forced to do.
I was discussing with the other person and I got the impression that billionaires would be necessary to the current Chinese strategy. I’m not entirely sure though if that was their thinking, I hope they’ll clarify.
I was, our viewpoints happen to be compatible. I’m not sure why it matters to you so much who provides you with the explanation. Are you just here to argue for the sake of arguing, that’s the reason you’re still refusing to engage with what I said?
A socialist society retains capitalist contradictions by its very nature because socialism is the transitional stage of development when the working class takes power, but existing relations of production have not yet been abolished. This is precisely what we see in China today. There are capitalists, they do exploit people, and that is a real contradiction within Chinese society. However, that’s different from saying that these people run the society the way they do in capitalist countries. Saying China is capitalist because it allows a limited form of capitalism to exist because it’s seen as useful for development, is like saying Canada is communist because it has public healthcare.
A good read on the subject I can recommend https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
I haven’t made claims about them running the society or that China is capitalist. I said it’s a mixed economy in one comment though.
I’m not sure what your argument is then. If you accept that it is a socialist society, then you also have to realize that it must have these contradictions which are the nature of such a society.
I was saying that it must be disappointing to see to a lot of people. They might not be as well versed in the science of why billionaires are necessary etc.
Nobody here is saying billionaires are necessary to exist. They are a product of specific historic and material conditions China found itself in. They chose to accept the problems opening up would bring because they judged that economic relations with the west would outweigh the downsides. It’s impossible to look at how China managed to develop today and argue that it was a wrong decision. Opening up allowed China to rapidly catch up technologically with the west, and to develop peacefully instead of having to devote huge amounts of resources to the military the way USSR was forced to do.
I was discussing with the other person and I got the impression that billionaires would be necessary to the current Chinese strategy. I’m not entirely sure though if that was their thinking, I hope they’ll clarify.
I mean I just explained that above, and provided you with a longer explanation in a link in the previous comment. You could try engaging with that.
I thought you were explaining your viewpoint, not theirs
I was, our viewpoints happen to be compatible. I’m not sure why it matters to you so much who provides you with the explanation. Are you just here to argue for the sake of arguing, that’s the reason you’re still refusing to engage with what I said?