The PRC is a socialist country. The commanding heights of industry are overwhelmingly publicly owned and controlled, the state is under the control of the working classes, and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Socialism isn’t the absence of markets or private property, but a transitional mode of production between capitalism, where private ownership is the principle aspect and the state under the control of capitalists, and communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan to fulfill the needs of all.
History exists, and the failures of those to successfully reform capitalism into socialism from within are important lessons.
There are many private businesses in China, probably most are.
Many other countries you would not call socialist also have the government owning critical industries/companies (like outside of NA, most governments own their state resource extraction businesses). The typical things we discount as not being socialist but that actually are such as mail etc also count.
You are basically arbitrarily choosing when to call something socialist vs not socialist by choosing to call china, a booming capitalist state with tons of humanitarian harms, just as any other booming (or used to be booming) capitalist state that of course also has socialist elements.
The rational person would instead focus on what else should be socialized because gradual progress is the only rational route. Irrational people spout off expecting bold revolutions where other people die horrifically so their idealist perspectives can be satiated, which more than likely would end up falling further towards the other direction.
History exists
Something you mention repeatedly as a way to add false credibility to your ridiculous stances, but also something which you can only draw vague, poorly correlated to examples with.
I’m starting to feel like Im arguing with an LLM with talking points designed to aggravate and talk me into a circle.
China has private property, yes, but it isn’t the principle aspect of the economy, nor does it govern the large firms and key industries, which are state owned:
Capitalist countries are much the opposite, even if they have public ownership of some industries, they are ultimately dominated by private capital. Mail services are not socialist, but an example of social services. China’s socialist system has resulted in the single greatest eradication of poverty in history. Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system, and the vast majority believe their country is strongly democratic, more than westerners believe of their governments:
China is in the early stages of socialism. They are taking a gradualist approach to collectivizing production and distribution, and relying on markets to rapidly develop underdeveloped portions of the economy while relying on massive state owned enterprises for the backbone of their economy:
What you’re talking with is a communist that actually knows what he’s talking about. I organize in real life and study theory, even writing an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list to help people like yourself better understand communism and socialism. I’m not an LLM, nor am I irrational, what’s irrational is clinging to a failed method of trying to convince a ruling class to give up the reigns through peaceful means, while people die due to imperialist genocide all over the world.
You have no sources, no points. You vaguely gesture to “atrocities” and “officials living above the law,” without any concrete examples. I give numerous facts and statistics, the blog post I linked is a compilation of peer reviewed studies and other metrics.
China isn’t free from negatives, the fact that I disagree with your blatant misconceptions like claiming China has no democracy doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge their actual faults, such as the sluggish (but still positive) progress on implementing more LGBTQIA+ protections. I deny the absurdities you claim.
To answer your questions:
China is democratic, and I gave many sources from both China and western firms confirming it.
As answered in 1, China is democratic. I support democracy.
All in all, most people are receptive to what I have to say. You in particular opened with ableist attacks (that you keep repeating, I might add), dehumanization of me by comparing me to an LLM, and an utter refusal to engage with the points or sources I bring up. I doubt I’ll be able to convince you in particular, but I also doubt you’d listen to anyone that isn’t already repeating what you say.
You have no sources, no points. You vaguely gesture to “atrocities” and “officials living above the law,” without any concrete examples. I give numerous facts and statistics, the blog post I linked is a compilation of peer reviewed studies and other metrics.
TBF, on Reddit they never needed facts, studies, or evidence to browbeat and win fake internet points.
Fair, just felt it was important to highlight for them. They aren’t going to change their minds this time, but in the future when others keep showing them similar points because reality is oriented that way they may finally reconsider.
No, I mean most people, in real life and online, are receptive to the basic facts and sources I include. You even claim a Harvard-based study is “misleading evidence” when it affirms what I’m saying. If it sounds like it’s from a different reality, then that means that your current understanding is divorced from our reality.
Not sure why you’re doubling down on ableism and dehumanization. It’s incredibly easy to just not be ableist or dehumanize people.
The PRC is a socialist country. The commanding heights of industry are overwhelmingly publicly owned and controlled, the state is under the control of the working classes, and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Socialism isn’t the absence of markets or private property, but a transitional mode of production between capitalism, where private ownership is the principle aspect and the state under the control of capitalists, and communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan to fulfill the needs of all.
History exists, and the failures of those to successfully reform capitalism into socialism from within are important lessons.
There are many private businesses in China, probably most are.
Many other countries you would not call socialist also have the government owning critical industries/companies (like outside of NA, most governments own their state resource extraction businesses). The typical things we discount as not being socialist but that actually are such as mail etc also count.
You are basically arbitrarily choosing when to call something socialist vs not socialist by choosing to call china, a booming capitalist state with tons of humanitarian harms, just as any other booming (or used to be booming) capitalist state that of course also has socialist elements.
The rational person would instead focus on what else should be socialized because gradual progress is the only rational route. Irrational people spout off expecting bold revolutions where other people die horrifically so their idealist perspectives can be satiated, which more than likely would end up falling further towards the other direction.
Something you mention repeatedly as a way to add false credibility to your ridiculous stances, but also something which you can only draw vague, poorly correlated to examples with.
I’m starting to feel like Im arguing with an LLM with talking points designed to aggravate and talk me into a circle.
China has private property, yes, but it isn’t the principle aspect of the economy, nor does it govern the large firms and key industries, which are state owned:
Capitalist countries are much the opposite, even if they have public ownership of some industries, they are ultimately dominated by private capital. Mail services are not socialist, but an example of social services. China’s socialist system has resulted in the single greatest eradication of poverty in history. Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system, and the vast majority believe their country is strongly democratic, more than westerners believe of their governments:
China is in the early stages of socialism. They are taking a gradualist approach to collectivizing production and distribution, and relying on markets to rapidly develop underdeveloped portions of the economy while relying on massive state owned enterprises for the backbone of their economy:
What you’re talking with is a communist that actually knows what he’s talking about. I organize in real life and study theory, even writing an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list to help people like yourself better understand communism and socialism. I’m not an LLM, nor am I irrational, what’s irrational is clinging to a failed method of trying to convince a ruling class to give up the reigns through peaceful means, while people die due to imperialist genocide all over the world.
Removed by mod
You’re so confidently incorrect. China does have voting and democratic structutes. They have the largest elections in the entire world. Further, they have eliminated absolute poverty, and year over year have steadily improved living conditions across the country.
You have no sources, no points. You vaguely gesture to “atrocities” and “officials living above the law,” without any concrete examples. I give numerous facts and statistics, the blog post I linked is a compilation of peer reviewed studies and other metrics.
China isn’t free from negatives, the fact that I disagree with your blatant misconceptions like claiming China has no democracy doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge their actual faults, such as the sluggish (but still positive) progress on implementing more LGBTQIA+ protections. I deny the absurdities you claim.
To answer your questions:
China is democratic, and I gave many sources from both China and western firms confirming it.
As answered in 1, China is democratic. I support democracy.
All in all, most people are receptive to what I have to say. You in particular opened with ableist attacks (that you keep repeating, I might add), dehumanization of me by comparing me to an LLM, and an utter refusal to engage with the points or sources I bring up. I doubt I’ll be able to convince you in particular, but I also doubt you’d listen to anyone that isn’t already repeating what you say.
TBF, on Reddit they never needed facts, studies, or evidence to browbeat and win fake internet points.
Fair, just felt it was important to highlight for them. They aren’t going to change their minds this time, but in the future when others keep showing them similar points because reality is oriented that way they may finally reconsider.
Removed by mod
No, I mean most people, in real life and online, are receptive to the basic facts and sources I include. You even claim a Harvard-based study is “misleading evidence” when it affirms what I’m saying. If it sounds like it’s from a different reality, then that means that your current understanding is divorced from our reality.
Not sure why you’re doubling down on ableism and dehumanization. It’s incredibly easy to just not be ableist or dehumanize people.