Literally communism.
This thing they call "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" has as much in common with Marx and Engels' idea of Communism as a Big Mac has with a plate of hummus.
Edit: western dengists, man.
While this is true it is not because China has deviated from socialist theory, including that of Marx and Enfels. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat as described by Marx and Engels as the necessary precursor to communism. It is also taking a very specific strategy towards imperialism that involves special economic zones, or capitalism zones, in order to build productive forces while also coupling the well-being of imperialist countries to China's ability to produce.
Communism will never be achieved by a state and no state has ever expected to do so. The idea that any country ever could use a category error, it means a person doesn't understand the term at all as used by Marx a d Engels. It is, by definition, stateless, and could only happen after all states are eventually abolished. But again, being practical people, they expected this to happen through a long process of struggle with dictatorships of the proletariat being what socialists first formed and could use to overturn the capitalist order
Western ultra-leftists, man, an infantile disorder. They fear the scroll.
Wrong.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn't China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn't it liberalize its economy? Is China's drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn't China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn't it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev's market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC's present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it's painfully obvious that you haven't studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren't ready, then Communism can't be achieved without struggles.
In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC's rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.
This is 6 years ago. Is there a more recent map?
Parenti quote
If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard.
By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative.
If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology.
If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom.
A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained.
What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
No no no. This is Whataboutism. It doesn't count.
Wbat's saddest of all is that the US is a one-party state in all the worst ways and a democracy in many of the wrong ways.
Love trains
Since Lemmy.world friends can't see the Lemmygrad and Hexbear comments, it's really weird to see the pro-commie takes not get downvoted and debated to oblivion
Where are the pro-communist takes? I just see a bunch of pro-authoritarian takes lapping up PRC koolaid.
Have the new rail lines reduced automobile traffic? Or are they adding lines in anticipation of future traffic?
The PRC doesn't have an already-built-up car-focused infrastructure like the US does for example, so they get to do it right from scratch. It becomes very difficult to get rid of that once it's built, so its best to do it right from the start.
They're trying to account for current and future needs for city-to-city travel.
They also have and still invest in decarbonizing with electric vehicles with battery swaps as well
Pure speculation on my part: The average Chinese citizen now has a higher standard of living, so the need for mobility increases. You'll have both more car owners and the need for railways, which does help reduce the need for cars, but they also don't fully overlap in use cases. You aren't just going from people swapping their car for taking a train, but also giving many people that had no car to start with the option to choose between getting one or using trains for their travels. Which is good, but in absolute numbers you still see more cars.
Similar to how China is adding both a massive amount of renewable energy and at the same time still building coal power plants, simply because the overall need for energy is still growing.
How big is this area compared to the US? Would be cool to see the areas superimposed
Here you go. Looks like it'd be about the eastern third to one half of the country getting high speed rail in just 10 years. That's amazing.
to be fair the US is a relatively small economy that doesn't have resources to pull this off once you subtract the money needed to topple elected governments and bomb brown kids overseas, while militarizing the police to crack down on the melanin epidemic in house.
That is pretty nuts
Thats so awesome!
The True Size Of is pretty useful for this
Bloody hell, Dessalines posted
70% of Chinese Millennials are homeowners
@Alsephina @Juice Isn't their bigger problem having too many unfinished apartments? Many more than are needed.
(And are those rates including those who own apartments that will never be completed?)
Nobody can buy land in china, it is only leased from the government for up to 70 years for residential usage (less for other purposes). Calling the tofu-dreg building on top of this "owning a home" is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. Why do people buy homes anyway instead of renting? Because all other options to invest are even worse and it is literally their only option.
I hope you don't tolerate how mega corps "sell" you shit like digital media or IoT devices only to later change the terms of sale and steal it back from you, because you never really owned it. Don't tolerate the same shit if a government does it to you.
Let's not pertend that this is because China has socialized housing. They used to do decades ago, but it has been abolished for a long time. Although they do have affordable housing program like most of the city in the U.S.
In fact, China has one of the highest home price to income ratio (ratio of median apartment prices to median familial disposable income, expressed as years of income) in the world: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp . Chinese people will need 30 years of disposible income to purchase an apartment; compare to 3 in the U.S., 7 in Netherland, 11 in France, and 9 in U.K.
Apartments in Beijing can easily cost double than a major U.S. city, while people in Beijing earn half as much. Here is a popular real estate website listing the previously-owned property (2bedroom between 90-120 m²) on the market in Beijing: https://m.ke.com/bj/ershoufang/l2a4 most of them are around 5000k RMB, which translates to 700k USD for 2b apartments. On the other hand, Beijing median monthly salary is 1548 USD (https://teamedupchina.com/average-salary-in-beijing/#Beijing_Salary_Data_Zhilian_Zhaopin), which translates to 10$ per hour assuming a 5 day work week and 4 week work month.
The high home ownership rate is likely due to a mix of false report and saving culture. In China, parents typically have a good amount of saving to provide their child (singleton because one-child policy) a home upon their marriage etc. This also explains why Beijing rent price is much lower than major cities in the U.S., despite its high housing price.
Also a housing bubble and real estate being one of the few investment vehicles available to regular chinese.
A huge W for public transport. I assume the PRC already owning the land is significantly decreasing bureaucratic cost / time, allowing for such fast advances.
In sharp contrast the US (and some European countries) keep running after tech bro "innovations" like the hyperloop rather than sticking to actually working systems. Most of them will never see a real purpose because they were never realisable in the first place or will be slimmed down to a point where conventional public transport would have been the better option. And tbh, most of them are really just bait to keep those countries in a state of "looking for alternatives" whilst their current infrastructure is rotting away. And with especially the US being a nation centered around individual transport the vision for public transport is imo clearly lacking.
Europe in general isn't hit by that as much, seeing the benefits of current public transport solutions (at least nowadays... the 90' and 00' were different thanks to neoliberalism and making short term profits instead of doing long term investments), but it is hindered by the clusterfuck of nations / different railway standards. The EU is trying to manage some of it (with ETCS / ERTMS) as well as the new coupling standard (DAC) and track gauges slowly but steadily going towards 1435mm but there are still a lot of things to do such as a transition towards a standard current or even more important: unified train registration (atm a train/carriage needs to be registered for each country separately which leads to unnecessary train switches at border crossings). For example Italy requires carriages to have a fire extinguishing system whilst some other EU countries don't or some mountainous countries require specific braking tests. Having unified safety standards would make things a lot easier.
But at the upside at least some European railway companies do have a vision. For example, the ÖBB (Austrian federal railways) plans to have high speed rail connecting the main cities as well as European alpine corridors like the Brenner, Koralm and Semmering, regional trains for distances covering abt 200km and are reachable in abt 2 to 3 hours and (sub-) urban rail for metropolitan areas. In bigger cities, they want to provide bike sharing at the stations whilst they want to make car sharing available in rural areas to help cover the last few kilometres through the mountains/woods/fields, where busses only go on a daily basis if you are lucky and the bus driver doesn't skip your stop and take a shortcut because they believe nobody will be waiting there anyways and they might reach said vision in the next upcoming years and likely less than a decade.
So TL;DR the PRC is profiting off of their property law, their ability to centralize standards and them going the (at the moment) optimum way instead of hoping for innovation from tech bros with fancy power point presentations and zero knowledge of physics, Europe is doing alright but is a bit of a decentralised mess and the US is getting a bit distracted by "innovations" and their mantra of individual transport.
(My experience in the area mainly comes from working at a state-owned railway company and being interested in the matter in general. If there is anything to add or if I have gotten something wrong, feel free to comment.) ^-^
Spain and France especially seem to be doing a good job building high speed rail:
It's just a pity that renfe's new high speed trains built by Talgo seem to be a shaky and noisy experience as highlighted here:
The hyperloop really encapsulates how car brained and isolated Americans are - even public transit should be individuals in a car alone one at a time.
I got a bunch of the new Toyota ad during my podcast today and the entire thing was a guy going on about how much he fucking loves traffic and rush hour now so he can hang out in his Toyota even longer.
FML.
Cries in HS2
Pretty cool. What does the planning and construction process look like that enables them to build out so quickly?
As far as the motivation for these large projects, its noteworthy that the most common profession in the NPC, the highest governing body in the PRC, is civil engineers.
I've seen a few shorter documentaries about how these massive projects are carried out, and it's fascinating.
by keep building them, instead of contracting for a single project and then shelve all the engineers for years, so every project is baby's first project.
PolyMatter put out a video on China's goal oriented social-political structure 2 years ago that I think will help understand the pace.
Hot take: Japan invented the bullet train, but China perfected it.
@HiddenLayer555 @dessalines There isn't much lacking in the Japanese network.
If perfected means they put it even where probably there wasn't a need for it, then yes. HSR is fantastic for connecting big cities, but it's also very expensive and sometimes China has prioritized HSR rather than regular rail, even though there wasn't a strict need for very fast expensive trains. Sometimes slower, more frequent and cheaper low speed rail can make more sense.
It's not bad per se, but it's money that could be used for better purposes.
Counterpoint: HSR is far more energy efficient than air travel, which would otherwise be the preferred option because regular trains are just not fast enough for country as big as China. Even when the electricity is generated from coal, the simple physics of not needing to literally defy gravity significantly reduces the carbon footprint of the trip.
That doesn't seem to be stopping them from buying cars on mass. Just saying.
when you have 1.5 billion people vs 330 million you're bound to have some cars. better to look at cars per capita to get an idea of how many people are actually driving
China has 0.17 private vehicles per capita compared to the US 0.81 cars per person. So basically I'm calling your comment BS.
They still are saddled with profit motives for some of their lines and the "if they build it they will come" strategy isn't working out too great for them. Several lines are in dire staights due to overbuilding and lack of ridership. Better than others of course.
Has any of this actually been built? Everybody's got "plans."
Elon Musk "plans" to build colonies on Mars.
Yes, this is the built status.
Yes, this is a map of what was completed in 2018. China isn't the US, they don't give billions of dollars of public funds to grifters like Elon Musk, they actually build things.
As an example, China used more concrete for building projects from the years 2011-2013, than the US used in the entire 20th century.
China has built entire ghost cities, bridges, subways and malls using Tofu Dreg construction. So yes, that is technically correct. China does indeed "build things."
The point of critical infrastructure is that it's supposed to endure, not have to be torn down again in a couple of years because it's unsafe to occupy or use.
Fuck cars, but this is not the way. Overbuilt and underfunded it has a shaky future.
high speed train in china is fuck planes, not fuck cars.
imagine what happens when a plane ticket is half or a third of the price, and you land down town at subway station...
now the subway... that's fuck cars.
if you think that the high speed rail in china is a net negative, i have a ghost city to sell you.
Im a fan of high speed rail as much as anyone but a lot of this network has been built with massive debts and for a lot lines, no immediate commercial viability. Not a million miles away from Victorian railway companies in London building lines for, hoped for, future demand. I hope it works out, but there is for sure a risk of it becoming a millstone.
Why does public infrastructure need to be commercially viable? There's plenty of good reasons for people to need to travel aside from engaging in commerce.
The justification should go the other way round; infrastructure is for public use, and commercial entities ought to be taxed extra for utilizing public resources.
They always forget in their arguments too, that being able to move people around is better economically for the whole country rather than businesses or the state trying to profit off people buying train tickets.
Is the US interstate highway system commercially viable? It seems to lose money constantly.
Making a profit off of public services is not one of the PRC's goals.
has been built with massive debts
While they have been financed it has not resulted in substantial long term debts.
no immediate commercial viability
Lmao. This is public infrastructure not a business grift.
When the private sector is in charge of things like this they do it worse and at higher expense btw.
Not a million miles away from Victorian railway companies in London building lines for, hoped for, future demand.
Very different, actually.
I hope it works out, but there is for sure a risk of it becoming a millstone.
I'm sure the Redditor that thinks public infrastructure needs commercial viability has plenty of useful lectures for the Chinese state on how to drive production and transportation.
built with massive debts for a lot lines, no immediate commercial viability.
The Chinese state owns the whole system, and state debt isn’t what you think it is. This is not a commercial system, so “commercial viability” is irrelevant.
@davel @elgordino the viability is: how do we let people move around the country, what is the cheapest way.
This is cheap.
It's also cheap everywhere else.
And by cheap I mean cheaper than alternatives.
Thats one of the best and safest investment any country could make. Rail will not become useless anytime soon. I would be more concerned about construction working conditions.
