No, they don’t. They stay socialist, or dissolve like the USSR did. Fascism doesn’t mean “scary,” it’s capitalism in decay when it needs to violently assert itself to perpetuate its existence.
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
I explained outright what my point on the USSR was, it did not need to end, but was done from the top-down. Socialism wasn’t in danger of collapse at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
As for the PRC, I’m well aware that capitalist systems have public sectors, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. Overwhelmingly so. Further, the state is run by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. By having the large firms and key industries publicly owned and run, this form of ownership is the principle aspect, and thus has dominance over the rest of the economy.
Britain, on the other hand, was and still is a capitalist country dominated by private capital. Having some level of public sector for things like healthcare while private capital has absolute dominance over finance, the large firms, etc means ultimately it’s the bourgeoisie that have power. It also has a literal monarchy. Further, Britain runs on imperialism to subsidize a lot of these costs for safety nets.
I did address that Chinese workers don’t have the same level of safety nets, I said China is in the primary, initial stages of socialism. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be wage labor, and there should be more robust safety nets, but those don’t determine if a system is socialist or not. Socialism is a mode of production, so it’s important to actually center the relation to production, and as I already established public ownership forms the principle aspect of the PRC.
So why did they voluntarily dissolve the union? And to my point, did socialism end when they dissolve the union? My point was that socialism gives way to capitalism and by extension fascism.
With China, my point is that they were more socialist and they’re becoming more capitalist. SOE do not make a country socialist. The UK was my first example and I never said they were socialist, I was saying that China by GDP has a similar concentration of state owned enterprises as the UK in the post war period, leading me to believe that they have collapsed into capitalism. Despite rising incomes, these benefits have been unequally spread across society. Look at GINI and wealth distribution by income, i will admit that in the 2020s it has plateaued, but even still their gini by income and wealth is worse than my home country of Australia (incidentally our largest bank was partially state owned until 1991.) Despite China being far more equal before Deng xiaoping reformed the economy.
China now is socialist light, not even at Nordic levels by most measurements Wealth and income inequality is worse than many capitalist countries, people living in cities earn far more than those in regional areas. Education, retirement pensions, health care and housing are tied to where you were born.
The USSR was socialist, Russia widely considered to be it’s successor, is not
You could say the same thing about socialism, as socialist societies seem to consistently turn fascist
No, they don’t. They stay socialist, or dissolve like the USSR did. Fascism doesn’t mean “scary,” it’s capitalism in decay when it needs to violently assert itself to perpetuate its existence.
What did the USSR dissolve into politically? What ever it was, it’s closer to fascism now.
The PRC wealth inequality has gotten steadily worse to the point where many (not all) democratic countries have better redistribution of resources
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
I explained outright what my point on the USSR was, it did not need to end, but was done from the top-down. Socialism wasn’t in danger of collapse at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
As for the PRC, I’m well aware that capitalist systems have public sectors, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. Overwhelmingly so. Further, the state is run by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. By having the large firms and key industries publicly owned and run, this form of ownership is the principle aspect, and thus has dominance over the rest of the economy.
Britain, on the other hand, was and still is a capitalist country dominated by private capital. Having some level of public sector for things like healthcare while private capital has absolute dominance over finance, the large firms, etc means ultimately it’s the bourgeoisie that have power. It also has a literal monarchy. Further, Britain runs on imperialism to subsidize a lot of these costs for safety nets.
I did address that Chinese workers don’t have the same level of safety nets, I said China is in the primary, initial stages of socialism. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be wage labor, and there should be more robust safety nets, but those don’t determine if a system is socialist or not. Socialism is a mode of production, so it’s important to actually center the relation to production, and as I already established public ownership forms the principle aspect of the PRC.
So why did they voluntarily dissolve the union? And to my point, did socialism end when they dissolve the union? My point was that socialism gives way to capitalism and by extension fascism.
With China, my point is that they were more socialist and they’re becoming more capitalist. SOE do not make a country socialist. The UK was my first example and I never said they were socialist, I was saying that China by GDP has a similar concentration of state owned enterprises as the UK in the post war period, leading me to believe that they have collapsed into capitalism. Despite rising incomes, these benefits have been unequally spread across society. Look at GINI and wealth distribution by income, i will admit that in the 2020s it has plateaued, but even still their gini by income and wealth is worse than my home country of Australia (incidentally our largest bank was partially state owned until 1991.) Despite China being far more equal before Deng xiaoping reformed the economy.
China now is socialist light, not even at Nordic levels by most measurements Wealth and income inequality is worse than many capitalist countries, people living in cities earn far more than those in regional areas. Education, retirement pensions, health care and housing are tied to where you were born.
The USSR was socialist, Russia widely considered to be it’s successor, is not
what makes you think that?