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 ...
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.
Further, you outright ignored the key findings from my linked survey:
While the CCP is seemingly under no imminent threat of popular upheaval, it cannot take the support of its people for granted. Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. For government leaders, this is a double-edged sword, as citizens who have grown accustomed to increases in living standards will expect such improvements to continue, and citizens who praise government officials for effective policies may indeed blame them when such policy failures affect them or their family members directly. While our survey reinforces narratives of CCP resilience, our data also point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
Your argument, essentially, is that 1.4 billion people are simply brainwashed into acceptance, which is just chauvanism. On the contrary, studies and analysis directly show that Chinese citizens approve of their system because it has dramatically improved their material conditions. Yet, you say I am the one drinking the Kool-Aid for having done the effort of reading the studies?
Forgive me for trusting the data and statistics freely available, and the conclusions of those who took them, over anecdotes from a (presumably) Canadian trained in standard Western Economics.
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
I have given sources on the structure of the democratic makeup of China, and your counters are “it isn’t because I said it isn’t.” You can read pretty easily about how China is structured and why, or why it is democratic in the first place.
Further, you outright ignored the key findings from my linked survey:
Your argument, essentially, is that 1.4 billion people are simply brainwashed into acceptance, which is just chauvanism. On the contrary, studies and analysis directly show that Chinese citizens approve of their system because it has dramatically improved their material conditions. Yet, you say I am the one drinking the Kool-Aid for having done the effort of reading the studies?
Forgive me for trusting the data and statistics freely available, and the conclusions of those who took them, over anecdotes from a (presumably) Canadian trained in standard Western Economics.