They say communism has never worked, but have you ever questioned who defines success? If you measure it by life expectancy, literacy, healthcare, and poverty reduction, socialism has outperformed ...
All countries designated as “Communist” are NOT run my parties trying to build there via Socialism. Many are just straight up Dictatorships, and most of them are heavily invested in or even becoming more Capitalist.
Depends on what countries you are talking about, plus what you think Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism even are. I’m speaking from a Marxist perspective.
Marxists consider those Socialist, as public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies. This wraps back around to asking what you think Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are to begin with.
The public does have control, though. Simply stating that it is “clearly not the case” from (presumably) a Canadian perspective doesn’t do any actual analysis of the systems at play. How familiar are you with how these countries are run, and what their models are? How much investigation have you done on the matter to dismiss them without so much as a single source?
How does the public have control of the companies owned or controlled by the Chinese government?
If the public wanted the government to do something different than they had already decided, there is zero ability to enact that change.
The Chinese government exists in a single party system that approves all candidates before they are even allowed to run in their elections, and important positions (within the party itself) are only handed out to loyalists.
I studied China at a University level as part of my business degree, including multiple trips to said country to visit businesses, universities, and politicians.
It is through control in the Public Sector that there is Socialist control. Socialism, in the Marxist sense, is not simply “workplace democracy.” There is democratic control of the government in China, but in a very different model from, say, Western Capitalist economies.
As for how the Democratic model of China is run, your description isn’t really accurate. Grassroots elections are held without the CPC’s approval, as a quick example ( more on that here ). It also makes sense that CPC members broadly popular within the CPC will have more important positions within it, not sure why you are trying to portray that as a negative thing.
As for how the Chinese people themselves see their system, they broadly approve of it. Well over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their system. Most believe their input legitimately has an impact on the system at large, unlike in countries such as the US.
I understand that a University course within a geopolitical adversary of China, and a business degree no doubt, would likely highlight the lack of decision-making power of businesses within China’s economy, especially Western businesses. Quite right, though, that’s the purpose of a Socialist government, to make business subservient to the public and gradually appropriate Capital into the public sphere of influence with the degree to which it has developed. This is the Marxian understanding of the utility of markets within a Socialist economy in a nutshell, nationalize the large and key industries that can be easily publicly planned, and let small ownership and cooperatives flourish and grow to the level at which they can be folded in.
All countries designated as “Communist” are NOT run my parties trying to build there via Socialism. Many are just straight up Dictatorships, and most of them are heavily invested in or even becoming more Capitalist.
Depends on what countries you are talking about, plus what you think Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism even are. I’m speaking from a Marxist perspective.
The ones with communist in the name of the country or the main political party of the country.
So China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Marxists consider those Socialist, as public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies. This wraps back around to asking what you think Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are to begin with.
Public ownership implies the public has control or benefits from them. That is clearly not the case, therefore not socialism.
The public does have control, though. Simply stating that it is “clearly not the case” from (presumably) a Canadian perspective doesn’t do any actual analysis of the systems at play. How familiar are you with how these countries are run, and what their models are? How much investigation have you done on the matter to dismiss them without so much as a single source?
How does the public have control of the companies owned or controlled by the Chinese government?
If the public wanted the government to do something different than they had already decided, there is zero ability to enact that change.
The Chinese government exists in a single party system that approves all candidates before they are even allowed to run in their elections, and important positions (within the party itself) are only handed out to loyalists.
I studied China at a University level as part of my business degree, including multiple trips to said country to visit businesses, universities, and politicians.
It is through control in the Public Sector that there is Socialist control. Socialism, in the Marxist sense, is not simply “workplace democracy.” There is democratic control of the government in China, but in a very different model from, say, Western Capitalist economies.
As for how the Democratic model of China is run, your description isn’t really accurate. Grassroots elections are held without the CPC’s approval, as a quick example ( more on that here ). It also makes sense that CPC members broadly popular within the CPC will have more important positions within it, not sure why you are trying to portray that as a negative thing.
As for how the Chinese people themselves see their system, they broadly approve of it. Well over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their system. Most believe their input legitimately has an impact on the system at large, unlike in countries such as the US.
I understand that a University course within a geopolitical adversary of China, and a business degree no doubt, would likely highlight the lack of decision-making power of businesses within China’s economy, especially Western businesses. Quite right, though, that’s the purpose of a Socialist government, to make business subservient to the public and gradually appropriate Capital into the public sphere of influence with the degree to which it has developed. This is the Marxian understanding of the utility of markets within a Socialist economy in a nutshell, nationalize the large and key industries that can be easily publicly planned, and let small ownership and cooperatives flourish and grow to the level at which they can be folded in.
Removed by mod