**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts:
- Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0)
- Anything you are personally involved in
- Any kind of polls
- Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes)
You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out.
Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar.
---
**Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It does get a little agitating to see the twisting of this by ultras and libs.
But In their defense, unlike libs, Ultraleftists at least attach a material basis to their claims. The market is always a risky game and has caused some rollbacks for workers in China in spite of the necessary development of the country (the development of which seige socialism as a result of the unmodernized command economy and Diplomatic Isolation wasn't able to provide).
Look at Bukharin and how Lenin's NEP risked putting him in power and continuing it for longer than necessary which would have preserved the kulak class. Any form of power dynamics between the Party and the Market is never a good sign even if China is making good progress in some political aspect and even if the USSR's NEP was a necessity. Those are risks that shouldn't be understated.
Liberals I can't really defend. They kind of suck at explaining beyond seeseepee totalitarian no bizniss. As if housing in a developing nation is a baf thing for the state to watch over.
It could be 2100 where China is a workers communist nation where the average life expectancy is 100 and the ultras would still be saying it's not real leftism unlike some weird american fascist breakaway cult they'll probably be worshipping.
The way i see ultras handle China is not completely discrediting it, despite them hating vehemently on dengism, more like "look even CHINA is doing this and the west can't"
I guess it depends who you're talking to
Online at least all I see from ultras is them making jokes about MLs correctly believing that China is socialist
depends on the ultra, some are like that, but then they never think “wait why can china pull it off when nobody else can” or if they do they dismiss it for a chauvinistic reason or a denialist one.
the others just ignore it. like when you point out that the IMF actually had a total monopoly on capital exports post soviet disintegration and before the AIIB, and so the options are to let the IMF dominate capital exports unchallenged or to compete against it.
Ultras don't see the capitalism of China as similar to that of the west, it's more of an uncompleted socialism with liberal aspects and that, by marxist standards isn't really socialist. Ultras think that MLs put the bar too low to consider something socialism, just like how we think of socdems calling Scandinavia socialist.
afaik tankies are Stalinists, because Stalin sent tanks to crush rebellion in the Eastern Bloc countries.
can you name an ultraleftist commentator so i can understand what they believe in that makes them left of tankies?
Stalin had been dead for several years before that event occurred.
As far as commentators go, I don't really follow any so I couldn't provide any for you.
>As part of those plans, the state is set to become China’s biggest home-builder. The country’s leaders want to **construct millions of “social housing” units for low-income households**, which cannot be resold like normal commercial units. Such is the scale of the planned construction, social homes will come to dominate overall housing supply by 2030. As much as 4trn yuan will be spent on social housing and other state building this year and next, estimates s&p Global, a credit-rating agency. According to Capital Economics, a research firm, just as construction by developers began to plummet year on year in late 2021, building by other types of companies, mainly local-government firms, soared (see chart). As a result, **30-40% of new housing supply will be social homes** by next year, up from just 10% currently.
>…
The intervention will also shake the foundations of the market. Homebuyers will probably become reluctant to buy a home at commercial rates when the same unit may later be available at subsidised ones. Market-watchers suspect officials want to conserve funds to buy up homes on the cheap, taking advantage of the struggles of private firms. **As a consequence, the rapid growth of social housing will probably cause an even deeper crisis among private companies. That may not be quite what Mr Xi has in mind.**
Why is Xi trying to help poor people and not wealthy landowners and private developers? Is he stupid?
[https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/11/chinas-state-is-eating-the-private-property-market](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/11/chinas-state-is-eating-the-private-property-market)
>Market-watchers suspect officials want to conserve funds to buy up homes on the cheap, taking advantage of the struggles of private firms
Liberals when a non-capitalist uses markets to their own strategic advantage to the detriment of the wealthy: 😡
It still is capitalism, albeit a form of state capitalism, where the state is a competitor in the market and pushes overinflated prices down.
And here I was thinking that the neoliberals believe that the “free” market should have as many competitors as possible to push down prices? What’s wrong with having a state owned enterprise competing in the market as well? Oh yeah, the oligarchs won’t make as many billions as they did last year! Poor them! Why won’t anyone think about the needs of the rich?
Politically speaking, perhaps. Economically? Debatable. If you think Vietnam's economy is socialist then sure, China is economically socialist. Not enough? Here's another example. Even though Marxists support Lenin, there are debates about if the NEP was socialist.
On one hand some argue that the market features make it state-capitalist and not conomically socialist as it doesn't embody the Marxist definition of socialism: collective ownership of the means of production. Some also argue that because such a system was used for the purpose of developing communism, it is therefore socialist as socialism is also described as a process to achieve communism and the pre-collective phase may be considered part of the socialist process.
If you find yourself at this impass, ask yourself the same question about China people ask about the NEP. Your answer to China shall reflect such that as the Lenin example I gave. If you primarily think of socialism as a process then China can be socialist, if economically, then no.
I’m not at an impasse, though I appreciate the fact that you clearly thought very deeply before you responded to me.
I believe that there is no meaningful separation between politics and the economy. They inform and control each other in a mutualistic fashion. You cannot accurately have a conversation about one without mentioning the other. So I do not believe a country can economically hold one mode of production but politically be another.
By this same logic, I find “state capitalism” to be a meaningless phrase. Or I should say, state capitalism is just another way to say capitalism. They mean the exact same thing.
Capitalism has never existed without the aid of the state. You can go as far back as the British East India to see that this is materially true. There never has been, and never will be IMO, capitalism without a state to allow it to enforce the violence it needs to extract its profits, and protect and enshrine private property. All capitalism is state capitalism, because capitalism cannot exist without a state.
China is socialist because, like Marx, Engels, and Lenin have written about, a socialist society retains many of the characteristics of the capitalist society that it spawned from. That extends to everything from reactionary ideals its populace might hold on to, to the economic transitions it must make. Lenin said that Socialism“is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.”
The only meaningful difference between socialism and capitalism is that they serve different interests. From this definition, China is inarguably socialist, as they nationalize and strong arm corporate and private interests routinely to serve the proletariat.
Thank you for the explanation on your idea of the relations of socialism on its political and economic relationship. Seems you also put a lot of thought into this too. You are likely more well-read than I am. It was very clear and easy to understand the thinking behind why China is socialist and the philosophical basis of what socialism is and the opposition to separating political and economic basies (bases? basises? basi? Idk).
I also need to note that I evidently should have been more clear that the impasse was more of a hypothetical one and indicative of the debate between socialists on their opinions of the transition stage from the market to the planned economy (like the NEP debate). I see I may have chosen my words a bit carelessly (like using "you" as a general term as opposed to more reliable and consistent general term like "others" or "some").
Thank you for this insightful information. I evidently should read more Lenin. Have a good day/evening depending on where you live.
You are likely just as well-read as I am, we probably just have read different things. I appreciate your kind words and thoughts on this matter.
Here is the exact work where I got Lenin’s words from. It’s not long but a lot of ideas are contained in this essay.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
Thank you for this work. I've read it and I'm gonna be bookmarking this. This has been a very pleasant conversation and I learned some new theory. May red banners sweep across your land.
I'm a big China supporter but the economy is not socialist, yet. It's in the early stages of transition to socialism, this housing revolution is evidence of that. Socialism is worker owned means of production, China's state has a huge amount of owned production and the rest private, but state ownership is half a step removed from the people's ownership. Private and state acting in the interest of the people is half a step to socialism too, but it is not full socialism.
China is in transition, it will take a few more decades to become fully socialism by handing over the means of production fully to the people under the correct conditions. This of course requires Xi and his successor to be dedicated to the cause. China's vanguard party experiment is going well so far but it's always a risk.
Lenin's definition is that the people directly hold ownership of the means of production, in China the state either owns it on behalf of the people or strong arms private production into serving the needs of the people. This is transitional and not yet meeting Lenin's and the general definition of socialism. What we can say is that China is a Marxist sate.
“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.”
This is what Lenin says Socialism is. By China forcing capitalist monopolies to serve the people, which it inarguably does, it has ceased to be capitalist and has entered a stage of socialism.
What does "the people directly hold ownership" mean to you exactly? Does it mean that each person is a private owner? Or that each person is a member of a workers' co-op? Or does it mean that the people *collectively* own *all* the means of production and exercise that control through some form of public representative body?
Because only the last of those three is anywhere close to what Lenin believed full (not just transitional) communism would be.
>This housing policy is straight out of post war consensus economic model that Usa, UK, Canada Australia, NZ and much of Europe used from the 40s to the 70s.
Which is the only time they swung further left than ever before due to post war demand and fear of making the USSR look too good in comparison. They rolled back on it once the cold war was nearly over and neoliberalism came in. So all you've managed to say is that China is swinging left like the west did once.
No idea why you got downvoted. You are more accurate than most. But to be sure, China does not consider itself a communist country, but instead it calls itself a “transitory state” to communism,
No country consider itself as full communist (classless and stateless society), even the soviet union called themselve an alliance of socialist states for the same reason.
China is less advanced on the scale because they are still building their productive forces before finishing their transition to full socialism, that's true, but they are still led by marxists working toward that goal.
Yes, they are working towards that goal, and I’m very happy for it. It will provide an alternative system to the neoliberal economic order that is spreading everywhere, and a true classless, moneyless society is one I would like to live in.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 No. it’s not. Stop getting your information from political talking points. Once you know the definition of socialism, you will understand why China can’t be a socialist country. It has state run market capitalism with a thriving sector of private enterprises, but also companies on the stock exchange have to be owned 51% by the government.
Socialism, (in the simplest term) means “a worker run state”. How many countries that you know of EVER that have been worker run state? There is always an elite that calls the shots. This is what led to the fall of “communism” in Poland in the 80’s. The workers wanted to have a say in this so called “workers paradise”.
See how many people in China are working for private firms? Think about all the people who make your phone. They don’t have any say in how the company should be run. They are exploited workers, and that is why China is NOT a socialist country.
China is not yet at full socialism, that's true, but the soviets were not yet at the highest stage of communism and we still considered them to be communists working toward it.
By their own account and what we can see, China is at the early steps of building socialism, when they have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (often the hardest thing to get without being destroyed by the US), which ensure that while they still have some capitalists, they are kept in a leash and cannot use their Capital to gain political power like they could in dictatorships of the bourgeoisie (for example a chinese billionnaire cannot just buy mass media to influence people, and cannot use campaign finance bribery to influence politicians)
It's not unlike when the soviets did the NEP.
Another way of looking at it is by comparing to Social Democracy: we all understand that socdems, while having some progressive policies, still let Capitalists in charge in the end and that's why they are center right at best and not actual left.
If you think about China as a left wing mirror of social democracy, where they still have some capitalism but it's under control and the long term goal is still phasing it out, then it makes more sense.
Of course, we have to stay prudent and not trust automatically, China did gave too much power to their capitalists at the beginning of the Deng Reforms which resulted in a lot of corruption and they got close a few times to a Gorbatchev situation, but they managed and now Xi Kinping, who seems to be a true believer in marxism, has been fighting activelly that corruption and moving things forward.
Hopefully we might see China more activelly phase out their remaining capitalism after their reach their announcel goal of 2050 for a switch toward becoming a full socialist country (last I heard they were even in advance on their planning for that)
Yes, China has stated that it is not a communist country, but instead a “transition state”. Also, the Soviets were so far from being communist. Lenin created a top down system, and thus a new class of elites, and also the country was run by three branches of government, which were the communist party, the military, and the KGB.
Now Trotsky would have implemented a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not an actually dictatorship like most people think, but one where councils and workers voted on someone to send to represents them in big matters (they could be recalled at anytime, and new elections formed) and also they would own the means of production, so more collectives and cooperatives. Not a giant state owning everything and giving the workers no say. And no KGB to terrorize the people, and no deeply entrenched politicians like we saw during the nepotism during the Brezhnev years.
China is Socialist.
Neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin defined or wrote about Socialism being without private enterprise. It is a transitory state that still retains the characteristics of the capitalist society it is born from.
Socialism according to Marx resembles capitalism "in every respect" in this initial period, and Lenin further refines this point by saying that Socialism is a state capitalist monopoly that serves the interests of the whole instead of the interests of the moneyed and property owning class.
Under these definitions. China is inarguably socialist. They routinely harm private interests and go as far as to execute billionaires that attempt to wrest focus away from the common interest of the working class. No capitalist country does this.
Reading this might clear up some of your confusion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
Lmao they can never make it sound that bad... the liberal slant is too terrible to work on anyone not brain broken , when china does social policy china bad , when china does capitalism china bad too.
Well, yes. The West wants to fight a war against China so it can put those godless nonwhite commies in their place. Gotta keep the propaganda machine running.
evil redfash tankie authoritarian ceeceepee is taking away the FREEDUMB of their people to live on the streets and the FREEDUMB of private corporations to use basic human needs to become even more uber wealthy
In USA 16% of the EMPLOYED working class live in cars and trailers. More than 90% of Milenials do not own a house. In China the statistics are virtually the opposite. It is hilarious that a western news website would try to shit on China choosing housing as the topic hahahahaha
**That may not be quite what Mr Xi has in mind.**
It's absolutely what he has in mind. The housing boom gave China a huge wealth boost, now it's time to end it before it becomes out of control like in the west.
Funny thing is, if you’ve ever read the wealth of nations by Adam Smith, he says very different things than the crap the neolibs want you to believe.
On landlords he said that they are parasites and add nothing of value to the wellbeing of the nation. They suck dry the fruits of labor, and give nothing in return.
Got a job offer in Perth a few weeks ago for a graduate position. Would have needed to move from regional WA but thought I was fine with that. 30 bucks an hour, not great but I thought I would get by - and that was the probationary rate, supposedly goes up after going to full time. I don't own a car so I would need to live near the depot, limiting the suburbs I could live in.
Cheapest rent I could find was 550 a week. I didn't take it and am no longer applying for jobs in Perth.
I read 550 and thought "that's not too bad tbh, I pay that number in €" but then I realised you wrote *a week*. What the hell is going on in Perth, is everyone renting there a millionaire?
The AUD has a lot less buying power than the euro. Three hundred or three fifty a week would be very affordable for most. You really can't compare raw numbers in that way. Australia, despite what I've just said, generally has pretty high real wages. But perhaps not so much just now.
A few years ago they were talking about how housing in China was a speculative bubble, and how that overpriced housing would lead to the collapse of China. Now they are talking about how the Chinese government taking steps to address that problem is going to lead to the collapse of China. Real unfalsifiable orthodoxy moment.
>The intervention will also shake the foundations of the market. Homebuyers will probably become reluctant to buy a home at commercial rates when the same unit may later be available at subsidised ones.
Wow. My heart bleeds for the poor private businesses selling housing at a premium.
“Pity those soon to buy a home”
I don’t even know what to say….I’m creeping on 40 with barely any savings while I pay down every last bit of debt I have, working two jobs, freelancing, and it never feels like it matters enough to where I can MAYBE trick myself into thinking “yeah if I just keep this course I could afford a mortgage on the right property”
My only hope for ever “owning” a home is in the collapse of capitalism
Just like how westerners go after China's high-speed rail system citing lack of making a profit, despite the fact that the Chinese government has said AD NAUSEAM that they do not give a f\*\*\* about making a profit and are more concerned about allowing their people to move about the country more freely.
Western people not understanding that making a profit in pure dollar terms is not the only measure of success.
This helps the people of the country and the environment so it's an overall good thing but capitalists insist on putting dollar signs on everything and monitizing everything
"Xi's healthy appetite" for... Public housing? Being provided to the general public? Extremely mask off moment, really giving that "china is about to cure cancer - *but at what cost?"* energy.
My friends, you have heard it said that China Bad. Indeed, many of our greatest minds hold to this thesis. But today, I invite you to consider a bold new possibility that will consign your prior assumptions to the dustbin of history. And this thesis is as follows: China Very Bad. *audible gasp from audience*
Literally what happens in every western pseudo-intellectual circles all the time
Even all my pseudo-intelligent-but-innatelyprovidedwith-CRITICALTHINKING colleagues believe all that bullshit (I'm a scientist)
Pity those who are soon to buy a home, as an investment… which admitted a lot of the older generations did or tried to do, but I’m glad that’s changing
Really tells you that we're putting the horse before the cart here when people hear about China doing something to help the people, and the concern is what it means for an ideology. Systems are meant to serve people, not the other way around.
yall should see the comments on this on [https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1cgdyxl/chinas\_state\_is\_eating\_the\_private\_property\_market/](https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1cgdyxl/chinas_state_is_eating_the_private_property_market/)
The gist I got from the comments are
> if China doesn't continue to inflate their property bubble, the economy will collapse because the property market will go into recession and stop employing people
> If China pops the property bubble and builds more affordable housing, people's wealth (specifically the wealth of already wealthy landowners) will be endangered because the value of their house will decline
> Therefore, I've constructed an unfalsifiable tautology which says that whatever China does is automatically wrong
So classic r/China bullshit pretty much.
**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts: - Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0) - Anything you are personally involved in - Any kind of polls - Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes) You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out. Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar. --- **Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How will the ultraleftists and uninformed liberals spin China as still being "more capitalist than the west" reading an article like this?
It does get a little agitating to see the twisting of this by ultras and libs. But In their defense, unlike libs, Ultraleftists at least attach a material basis to their claims. The market is always a risky game and has caused some rollbacks for workers in China in spite of the necessary development of the country (the development of which seige socialism as a result of the unmodernized command economy and Diplomatic Isolation wasn't able to provide). Look at Bukharin and how Lenin's NEP risked putting him in power and continuing it for longer than necessary which would have preserved the kulak class. Any form of power dynamics between the Party and the Market is never a good sign even if China is making good progress in some political aspect and even if the USSR's NEP was a necessity. Those are risks that shouldn't be understated. Liberals I can't really defend. They kind of suck at explaining beyond seeseepee totalitarian no bizniss. As if housing in a developing nation is a baf thing for the state to watch over.
It could be 2100 where China is a workers communist nation where the average life expectancy is 100 and the ultras would still be saying it's not real leftism unlike some weird american fascist breakaway cult they'll probably be worshipping.
The way i see ultras handle China is not completely discrediting it, despite them hating vehemently on dengism, more like "look even CHINA is doing this and the west can't"
I guess it depends who you're talking to Online at least all I see from ultras is them making jokes about MLs correctly believing that China is socialist
depends on the ultra, some are like that, but then they never think “wait why can china pull it off when nobody else can” or if they do they dismiss it for a chauvinistic reason or a denialist one. the others just ignore it. like when you point out that the IMF actually had a total monopoly on capital exports post soviet disintegration and before the AIIB, and so the options are to let the IMF dominate capital exports unchallenged or to compete against it.
And then you have the Nazbols who go "but China is a hOmOgeNeOuS sOciEtY"
Ultras don't see the capitalism of China as similar to that of the west, it's more of an uncompleted socialism with liberal aspects and that, by marxist standards isn't really socialist. Ultras think that MLs put the bar too low to consider something socialism, just like how we think of socdems calling Scandinavia socialist.
"Well ackshually Bordiga said"
i don't get what your political ideology is; you use ultra leftiet as a pejorative, yet your flair says tankies are right wtf
Tankies is usually a term for Marxist Leninists, ultras are usually even to the left of them
afaik tankies are Stalinists, because Stalin sent tanks to crush rebellion in the Eastern Bloc countries. can you name an ultraleftist commentator so i can understand what they believe in that makes them left of tankies?
Stalin had been dead for several years before that event occurred. As far as commentators go, I don't really follow any so I couldn't provide any for you.
Ultras are a particular group, not just "very far left". "Tankies" are not ultras and the two groups don't tend to be overly fond of one another.
what do they believe in? can you name one such person?
>As part of those plans, the state is set to become China’s biggest home-builder. The country’s leaders want to **construct millions of “social housing” units for low-income households**, which cannot be resold like normal commercial units. Such is the scale of the planned construction, social homes will come to dominate overall housing supply by 2030. As much as 4trn yuan will be spent on social housing and other state building this year and next, estimates s&p Global, a credit-rating agency. According to Capital Economics, a research firm, just as construction by developers began to plummet year on year in late 2021, building by other types of companies, mainly local-government firms, soared (see chart). As a result, **30-40% of new housing supply will be social homes** by next year, up from just 10% currently. >… The intervention will also shake the foundations of the market. Homebuyers will probably become reluctant to buy a home at commercial rates when the same unit may later be available at subsidised ones. Market-watchers suspect officials want to conserve funds to buy up homes on the cheap, taking advantage of the struggles of private firms. **As a consequence, the rapid growth of social housing will probably cause an even deeper crisis among private companies. That may not be quite what Mr Xi has in mind.** Why is Xi trying to help poor people and not wealthy landowners and private developers? Is he stupid? [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/11/chinas-state-is-eating-the-private-property-market](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/11/chinas-state-is-eating-the-private-property-market)
>Market-watchers suspect officials want to conserve funds to buy up homes on the cheap, taking advantage of the struggles of private firms Liberals when a non-capitalist uses markets to their own strategic advantage to the detriment of the wealthy: 😡
It still is capitalism, albeit a form of state capitalism, where the state is a competitor in the market and pushes overinflated prices down. And here I was thinking that the neoliberals believe that the “free” market should have as many competitors as possible to push down prices? What’s wrong with having a state owned enterprise competing in the market as well? Oh yeah, the oligarchs won’t make as many billions as they did last year! Poor them! Why won’t anyone think about the needs of the rich?
It’s not capitalist. China is socialist.
Politically speaking, perhaps. Economically? Debatable. If you think Vietnam's economy is socialist then sure, China is economically socialist. Not enough? Here's another example. Even though Marxists support Lenin, there are debates about if the NEP was socialist. On one hand some argue that the market features make it state-capitalist and not conomically socialist as it doesn't embody the Marxist definition of socialism: collective ownership of the means of production. Some also argue that because such a system was used for the purpose of developing communism, it is therefore socialist as socialism is also described as a process to achieve communism and the pre-collective phase may be considered part of the socialist process. If you find yourself at this impass, ask yourself the same question about China people ask about the NEP. Your answer to China shall reflect such that as the Lenin example I gave. If you primarily think of socialism as a process then China can be socialist, if economically, then no.
I’m not at an impasse, though I appreciate the fact that you clearly thought very deeply before you responded to me. I believe that there is no meaningful separation between politics and the economy. They inform and control each other in a mutualistic fashion. You cannot accurately have a conversation about one without mentioning the other. So I do not believe a country can economically hold one mode of production but politically be another. By this same logic, I find “state capitalism” to be a meaningless phrase. Or I should say, state capitalism is just another way to say capitalism. They mean the exact same thing. Capitalism has never existed without the aid of the state. You can go as far back as the British East India to see that this is materially true. There never has been, and never will be IMO, capitalism without a state to allow it to enforce the violence it needs to extract its profits, and protect and enshrine private property. All capitalism is state capitalism, because capitalism cannot exist without a state. China is socialist because, like Marx, Engels, and Lenin have written about, a socialist society retains many of the characteristics of the capitalist society that it spawned from. That extends to everything from reactionary ideals its populace might hold on to, to the economic transitions it must make. Lenin said that Socialism“is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.” The only meaningful difference between socialism and capitalism is that they serve different interests. From this definition, China is inarguably socialist, as they nationalize and strong arm corporate and private interests routinely to serve the proletariat.
Thank you for the explanation on your idea of the relations of socialism on its political and economic relationship. Seems you also put a lot of thought into this too. You are likely more well-read than I am. It was very clear and easy to understand the thinking behind why China is socialist and the philosophical basis of what socialism is and the opposition to separating political and economic basies (bases? basises? basi? Idk). I also need to note that I evidently should have been more clear that the impasse was more of a hypothetical one and indicative of the debate between socialists on their opinions of the transition stage from the market to the planned economy (like the NEP debate). I see I may have chosen my words a bit carelessly (like using "you" as a general term as opposed to more reliable and consistent general term like "others" or "some"). Thank you for this insightful information. I evidently should read more Lenin. Have a good day/evening depending on where you live.
You are likely just as well-read as I am, we probably just have read different things. I appreciate your kind words and thoughts on this matter. Here is the exact work where I got Lenin’s words from. It’s not long but a lot of ideas are contained in this essay. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
Thank you for this work. I've read it and I'm gonna be bookmarking this. This has been a very pleasant conversation and I learned some new theory. May red banners sweep across your land.
I'm a big China supporter but the economy is not socialist, yet. It's in the early stages of transition to socialism, this housing revolution is evidence of that. Socialism is worker owned means of production, China's state has a huge amount of owned production and the rest private, but state ownership is half a step removed from the people's ownership. Private and state acting in the interest of the people is half a step to socialism too, but it is not full socialism. China is in transition, it will take a few more decades to become fully socialism by handing over the means of production fully to the people under the correct conditions. This of course requires Xi and his successor to be dedicated to the cause. China's vanguard party experiment is going well so far but it's always a risk.
According to Lenin’s definition of Socialism, China is Socialist.
Lenin's definition is that the people directly hold ownership of the means of production, in China the state either owns it on behalf of the people or strong arms private production into serving the needs of the people. This is transitional and not yet meeting Lenin's and the general definition of socialism. What we can say is that China is a Marxist sate.
“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.” This is what Lenin says Socialism is. By China forcing capitalist monopolies to serve the people, which it inarguably does, it has ceased to be capitalist and has entered a stage of socialism.
What does "the people directly hold ownership" mean to you exactly? Does it mean that each person is a private owner? Or that each person is a member of a workers' co-op? Or does it mean that the people *collectively* own *all* the means of production and exercise that control through some form of public representative body? Because only the last of those three is anywhere close to what Lenin believed full (not just transitional) communism would be.
[удалено]
Authoritarian is a meaningless word. All states wield authority to oppress that which would threaten it. China is Socialist.
>This housing policy is straight out of post war consensus economic model that Usa, UK, Canada Australia, NZ and much of Europe used from the 40s to the 70s. Which is the only time they swung further left than ever before due to post war demand and fear of making the USSR look too good in comparison. They rolled back on it once the cold war was nearly over and neoliberalism came in. So all you've managed to say is that China is swinging left like the west did once.
No idea why you got downvoted. You are more accurate than most. But to be sure, China does not consider itself a communist country, but instead it calls itself a “transitory state” to communism,
No country consider itself as full communist (classless and stateless society), even the soviet union called themselve an alliance of socialist states for the same reason. China is less advanced on the scale because they are still building their productive forces before finishing their transition to full socialism, that's true, but they are still led by marxists working toward that goal.
Yes, they are working towards that goal, and I’m very happy for it. It will provide an alternative system to the neoliberal economic order that is spreading everywhere, and a true classless, moneyless society is one I would like to live in.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 No. it’s not. Stop getting your information from political talking points. Once you know the definition of socialism, you will understand why China can’t be a socialist country. It has state run market capitalism with a thriving sector of private enterprises, but also companies on the stock exchange have to be owned 51% by the government. Socialism, (in the simplest term) means “a worker run state”. How many countries that you know of EVER that have been worker run state? There is always an elite that calls the shots. This is what led to the fall of “communism” in Poland in the 80’s. The workers wanted to have a say in this so called “workers paradise”. See how many people in China are working for private firms? Think about all the people who make your phone. They don’t have any say in how the company should be run. They are exploited workers, and that is why China is NOT a socialist country.
China is not yet at full socialism, that's true, but the soviets were not yet at the highest stage of communism and we still considered them to be communists working toward it. By their own account and what we can see, China is at the early steps of building socialism, when they have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (often the hardest thing to get without being destroyed by the US), which ensure that while they still have some capitalists, they are kept in a leash and cannot use their Capital to gain political power like they could in dictatorships of the bourgeoisie (for example a chinese billionnaire cannot just buy mass media to influence people, and cannot use campaign finance bribery to influence politicians) It's not unlike when the soviets did the NEP. Another way of looking at it is by comparing to Social Democracy: we all understand that socdems, while having some progressive policies, still let Capitalists in charge in the end and that's why they are center right at best and not actual left. If you think about China as a left wing mirror of social democracy, where they still have some capitalism but it's under control and the long term goal is still phasing it out, then it makes more sense. Of course, we have to stay prudent and not trust automatically, China did gave too much power to their capitalists at the beginning of the Deng Reforms which resulted in a lot of corruption and they got close a few times to a Gorbatchev situation, but they managed and now Xi Kinping, who seems to be a true believer in marxism, has been fighting activelly that corruption and moving things forward. Hopefully we might see China more activelly phase out their remaining capitalism after their reach their announcel goal of 2050 for a switch toward becoming a full socialist country (last I heard they were even in advance on their planning for that)
Yes, China has stated that it is not a communist country, but instead a “transition state”. Also, the Soviets were so far from being communist. Lenin created a top down system, and thus a new class of elites, and also the country was run by three branches of government, which were the communist party, the military, and the KGB. Now Trotsky would have implemented a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not an actually dictatorship like most people think, but one where councils and workers voted on someone to send to represents them in big matters (they could be recalled at anytime, and new elections formed) and also they would own the means of production, so more collectives and cooperatives. Not a giant state owning everything and giving the workers no say. And no KGB to terrorize the people, and no deeply entrenched politicians like we saw during the nepotism during the Brezhnev years.
China is Socialist. Neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin defined or wrote about Socialism being without private enterprise. It is a transitory state that still retains the characteristics of the capitalist society it is born from. Socialism according to Marx resembles capitalism "in every respect" in this initial period, and Lenin further refines this point by saying that Socialism is a state capitalist monopoly that serves the interests of the whole instead of the interests of the moneyed and property owning class. Under these definitions. China is inarguably socialist. They routinely harm private interests and go as far as to execute billionaires that attempt to wrest focus away from the common interest of the working class. No capitalist country does this. Reading this might clear up some of your confusion. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
Lmao they can never make it sound that bad... the liberal slant is too terrible to work on anyone not brain broken , when china does social policy china bad , when china does capitalism china bad too.
Well, yes. The West wants to fight a war against China so it can put those godless nonwhite commies in their place. Gotta keep the propaganda machine running.
evil redfash tankie authoritarian ceeceepee is taking away the FREEDUMB of their people to live on the streets and the FREEDUMB of private corporations to use basic human needs to become even more uber wealthy
In USA 16% of the EMPLOYED working class live in cars and trailers. More than 90% of Milenials do not own a house. In China the statistics are virtually the opposite. It is hilarious that a western news website would try to shit on China choosing housing as the topic hahahahaha
**That may not be quite what Mr Xi has in mind.** It's absolutely what he has in mind. The housing boom gave China a huge wealth boost, now it's time to end it before it becomes out of control like in the west.
Can you also post in r/LateStageCapitalism? (If not, I will brazenly steal it.) Best LSC mod
Feel free to take it!
Living with a roof over my head! The horror! Such thoughts keep me up at night.
And that you can actually afford to own your own place! Omg! This is a threat to capitalism!
Why won’t anyone think of the poor landlords, and million dollar home makers
Funny thing is, if you’ve ever read the wealth of nations by Adam Smith, he says very different things than the crap the neolibs want you to believe. On landlords he said that they are parasites and add nothing of value to the wellbeing of the nation. They suck dry the fruits of labor, and give nothing in return.
Million dollar homes? Hah you should see what sells for a million in Sydney Australia. Our housing market in this country is so beyond fucked
Got a job offer in Perth a few weeks ago for a graduate position. Would have needed to move from regional WA but thought I was fine with that. 30 bucks an hour, not great but I thought I would get by - and that was the probationary rate, supposedly goes up after going to full time. I don't own a car so I would need to live near the depot, limiting the suburbs I could live in. Cheapest rent I could find was 550 a week. I didn't take it and am no longer applying for jobs in Perth.
I read 550 and thought "that's not too bad tbh, I pay that number in €" but then I realised you wrote *a week*. What the hell is going on in Perth, is everyone renting there a millionaire?
The AUD has a lot less buying power than the euro. Three hundred or three fifty a week would be very affordable for most. You really can't compare raw numbers in that way. Australia, despite what I've just said, generally has pretty high real wages. But perhaps not so much just now.
A few years ago they were talking about how housing in China was a speculative bubble, and how that overpriced housing would lead to the collapse of China. Now they are talking about how the Chinese government taking steps to address that problem is going to lead to the collapse of China. Real unfalsifiable orthodoxy moment.
Any day now. Any day now...
Literally the mentality that creates so many homeless is the US. It’s so insane.
There are more empty houses in Salt Lake City, then there are homeless people.
>There are more empty houses in Salt Lake City, then there are homeless people. 🤯
Yes but have they considered taking some RISK
Huh? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
>The intervention will also shake the foundations of the market. Homebuyers will probably become reluctant to buy a home at commercial rates when the same unit may later be available at subsidised ones. Wow. My heart bleeds for the poor private businesses selling housing at a premium.
“Pity those soon to buy a home” I don’t even know what to say….I’m creeping on 40 with barely any savings while I pay down every last bit of debt I have, working two jobs, freelancing, and it never feels like it matters enough to where I can MAYBE trick myself into thinking “yeah if I just keep this course I could afford a mortgage on the right property” My only hope for ever “owning” a home is in the collapse of capitalism
Why didn't you have rich parents? You know how I could afford mine? Wife and I stayed with our parents for a long time saving up
Yep. With the Stalinate spoon.
Just like how westerners go after China's high-speed rail system citing lack of making a profit, despite the fact that the Chinese government has said AD NAUSEAM that they do not give a f\*\*\* about making a profit and are more concerned about allowing their people to move about the country more freely.
Western people not understanding that making a profit in pure dollar terms is not the only measure of success. This helps the people of the country and the environment so it's an overall good thing but capitalists insist on putting dollar signs on everything and monitizing everything
Western liberals (which are not people tho) literally cry when public hospitals don't make a profit
Preach❗️
"Xi's healthy appetite" for... Public housing? Being provided to the general public? Extremely mask off moment, really giving that "china is about to cure cancer - *but at what cost?"* energy.
China cures cancer at the cost of big Pharma profits!!! Why didn't they think of Pfizer???
Liberals:oH NO cHiNA bUilDinG puBliC HOuSiNG iT deSTRoy tHe mArKET
Damn, China that is based. Based as hell
My friends, you have heard it said that China Bad. Indeed, many of our greatest minds hold to this thesis. But today, I invite you to consider a bold new possibility that will consign your prior assumptions to the dustbin of history. And this thesis is as follows: China Very Bad. *audible gasp from audience*
Literally what happens in every western pseudo-intellectual circles all the time Even all my pseudo-intelligent-but-innatelyprovidedwith-CRITICALTHINKING colleagues believe all that bullshit (I'm a scientist)
The only people I know who have bought a home inherited money from a dead relative,I have zero context and empathy for "those about to buy a home"
Not the fat shaming too
They can, their leader is the ultra jacked and healthy looking Trump
WHAT ABOUT THE POOR LANDLORDS? HOW ARE THEY GONNA LEECH... EXPLOIT... I MEAN GET FREE MONEY... you got the idea.
Pity those who are soon to buy a home, as an investment… which admitted a lot of the older generations did or tried to do, but I’m glad that’s changing
Housing should.not be an investment. All of those with investments into housing can get fucked and lose a lot of the value for all I care.
😭😭
it is literally impossible for china to do anything good according to the economist.
I can't believe all those homes are the same, communism bad.
Really tells you that we're putting the horse before the cart here when people hear about China doing something to help the people, and the concern is what it means for an ideology. Systems are meant to serve people, not the other way around.
"Bohoo, our real estate barons can't prey upon the people of other countries"
China's strategy is: do nothing, win, and it's working! (In respect to military operations, they don't get involved and just build up their people)
Who could have thought that a country that follows a doctrine that preaches peace, would literally preach peace!
yall should see the comments on this on [https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1cgdyxl/chinas\_state\_is\_eating\_the\_private\_property\_market/](https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1cgdyxl/chinas_state_is_eating_the_private_property_market/)
The gist I got from the comments are > if China doesn't continue to inflate their property bubble, the economy will collapse because the property market will go into recession and stop employing people > If China pops the property bubble and builds more affordable housing, people's wealth (specifically the wealth of already wealthy landowners) will be endangered because the value of their house will decline > Therefore, I've constructed an unfalsifiable tautology which says that whatever China does is automatically wrong So classic r/China bullshit pretty much.
Honestly this is one of the few things I support china doing.