No the Market is heavily regulated by the CPCh It isn't like anything Capitalist countries have. China follows five year plans that Private companies need to follow. In addition to that any company over 100 Workers have Cells of the CPCh in it the company Each multinational company that wishes to engage with China – and so many do – must have a communist cell within it.
China also controls the Bourgeoisie in their country. China let inequality grow but stopped at the tipping point to unfairness in the 21st centrury, unlike in capitalist countries. The Income of China's workers raise steadily, even faster than the GDP of the country. All that doesn't happen in Capitalist Countries. China's goals are lifting their people out of Poverty (Wich they are doing very succsessful with 22.9 Million per year that are lifted out of poverty and 700 Million in the last 30 Years), investing in Renewable energy, restoring peace. China is in the primary stage to socialism and not a state capitalist country.
Luis Miller
That's what makes it state capitalism. If you have value, you have capitalism, end of story. When did Zig Forums become such a cesspit?
Tyler Thompson
again, instead of pointing to some marx said you could've tried to bring up straight-forward points refuting mine as I'm not into treating ideology as some kind of religion where everything marx said is automatically right
Aiden Carter
The CPC leadership do not represent the proletariat, the profit motive still exists. The working class is exploited, wage labor still exists in a capitalist form, and they also exploit resources from Africa. China is further from socialism than the USSR ever was, and further than even the DPRK. China is fucking capitalism but with a hammer and sickle here and there.
Thomas Brown
China is led by workers and they control the market and the Bourgeoisie a state capitalist country would act against the interests of the Bourgeoisie. A Capitalist Country wouldn't even have a Communist party with democratic Centralism. So really, ask yourself whether a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would:
Mandate re-education courses in Marxism for all government officials? Order all journalists and students of journalism to take courses in Marxism? Step up the ideology drive on college campuses and introduce Mao Zedong thought classes in 2,600 universities? Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, deliberately ensure that average manufacturing wages have been rising consistently by ~11% per year at the expense of corporate profits, compared to other “developing” countries like India where wages have stayed repressed for decades? Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie roll out comprehensive social programmes in the middle of a neoliberal wave of austerity in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis? Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in a situation where workers beat a steel executive to death due to privatization plans, step in, prevent workers from being prosecuted, and then reverse the privatization? Let me respond in advance to three objections. First — no, you cannot excuse the predominance of ‘worker-friendly’ (to say the least) policies by saying that the PRC is a social democracy. Social democracies existed within specific social conditions (from the 1940s to the 1970s) within specific geographical areas (Europe and the settler-colonies of North America, Australia, and New Zealand), and often existed only for the settler/labour-aristocratic/petit-bourgeois classes. It was the displacement of exploitation from the First World to the Third — it was imperialism, plain and simple. Social democracy never represented a distinct articulation of capital, and has never, ever been a phenomenon in periphery countries. It’s funny because these are the same people who claim the PRC is a brutal hell-hole of rabid exploitation where workers have no power, and then do a rapid about-face and say that the Chinese government is just compromising with workers and doing all of this shit because reasons (i.e because they don’t know what social democracy actually is and they don’t understand how social democracy is financed by imperialist value-transfer).
Second — if you still think that when the cameras switch off, every one of the 88.76 million members of the CPC dons a black top hat, hi-fives their neighbour, and says ‘gee we sure fooled those folks into thinking we were dedicated Marxist-Leninists’ then you’re being silly. It’s an orientalist fantasy that the CPC gives enough of a shit about what Western leftists think of them, that they went to the effort of mandating courses in Marxism for every university student in the country just for show.if you think that the PRC was, at any point, a dictatorship of the proletariat, then you can’t claim that it’s now a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. To those people, if I asked you whether communists could simply get elected into power and turn the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie into an organ of proletarian class power, then you would say no. But then you have people going around and saying that a dictatorship of the proletariat can be reformed into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, when those same people know that in order for the bourgeoisie become the ruling-class, a sharp rupture is required in which the proletarian state is overthrown and supplanted by a bourgeois state. There has been no such rupture in China. There was a rupture in the USSR, a rupture in Yugoslavia, in Albania, and across eastern Europe — but no rupture in China.
Brayden Price
Unlike anarcho-communists like Bakunin, Marx didn’t want to abolish money outright. His idea was that technological advancements will eventually increase productivity so much that there will be a superabundance of goods and scarcity would be more or less overcome, and if there is no scarcity, there is no need for money or any other medium of exchange.
Lucas Powell
When I was young I thought it just meant we traded with countries other communist didn't. At least it allowed me to gawk at busty Western women when I went to the beach. It seemed successful to me, though I feel it's a bit centrist and liberal now. Comrade Tito would have been on to something if not for his optimism.
