Remember that China was doing most of what it was doing with no support and at the same time as resisting western powers while states like South Korea were fully benefiting (on an industrial level anyway) from being a US puppet state.
But they still did it mostly with the help of capital, so it's not 100% true that they were doing it on their own. Also addressing the last point, if as dialectics states that you can't achieve socialism without implementing capitalism (which is btw plain wrong imo) China is still a capitalist state despite they calling themselves socialism with chinese characteristics or whatever name they give it, because as of now, they have basically the same economic system as Hungary who are as far from socialism as you can imagine (or they're playing some 600D chess). So yeah, if the main tenet is that they are trying to implement socialism in 2050 BUT until then they will look and act like (mostly) a capitalist state, then don't call it that (this goes for CCP fans too btw), call it a capitalist state that's working towards socialism. I mean, i'll still be sceptical (as all of us should be), but it's a much more acceptable explanation.
This requires a source, because I’m aware of them having activity in Africa, but what I’ve read about is of a much less exploitative nature than what the western powers are doing.
I'm going to look for some sources but "much less exploitative", aka handing out loans, with lower interest rates (that's a fact) than the IMF, but still ripping them off for their natural resources and however much i saw that they are actually building infrastructure where they are active, i'm yet to see any proof of them not just building straight roads from coltan mines to the nearest port.
And again, i'm not dismissing China as a non-socialist project at all, i'm just voicing scepticism. There are very good projects started there (if they could start pushing for CNG cars more for example that would help a lot for them to not be reliant that much on heavy metals, and they just announced that there will be a push like that), and i want to understand them more - more than "all the critics are from the CIA".
I’m not saying markets = development of the productive forces towards the end of achieving communism, but that is clearly China’s goal.
Uhmm, i'd beg to differ, but okay.
Do you think socialism is a mode of production? Feudalism is characterized by lord/serf relationships and mercantilism/capitalism by employer/employee. What does a non-capitalist, non-communist, socialist state do coming from a feudal society? What should its relations and mode of production be?
China has for long not been a feudal society, the times of Mao are long gone, but the employee/employer relationships haven't changed much (though as far as i know it's worse for foreign companies), 996 work schedule is still a thing (or is it western propaganda too? If it is, what's the truth?), so pardon me for not believing the socialist project narrative uncritically.
China’s mode of production is currently capitalism but they are a communist/socialist country because it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoise
But they still did it mostly with the help of capital, so it's not 100% true that they were doing it on their own. Also addressing the last point, if as dialectics states that you can't achieve socialism without implementing capitalism (which is btw plain wrong imo) China is still a capitalist state despite they calling themselves socialism with chinese characteristics or whatever name they give it, because as of now, they have basically the same economic system as Hungary who are as far from socialism as you can imagine (or they're playing some 600D chess). So yeah, if the main tenet is that they are trying to implement socialism in 2050 BUT until then they will look and act like (mostly) a capitalist state, then don't call it that (this goes for CCP fans too btw), call it a capitalist state that's working towards socialism. I mean, i'll still be sceptical (as all of us should be), but it's a much more acceptable explanation.
I'm going to look for some sources but "much less exploitative", aka handing out loans, with lower interest rates (that's a fact) than the IMF, but still ripping them off for their natural resources and however much i saw that they are actually building infrastructure where they are active, i'm yet to see any proof of them not just building straight roads from coltan mines to the nearest port.
And again, i'm not dismissing China as a non-socialist project at all, i'm just voicing scepticism. There are very good projects started there (if they could start pushing for CNG cars more for example that would help a lot for them to not be reliant that much on heavy metals, and they just announced that there will be a push like that), and i want to understand them more - more than "all the critics are from the CIA".
deleted by creator
The title of the post says "China isn't doing socialism right", i said they're not doing socialism.
A state can use markets for a lot of things.
deleted by creator
Uhmm, i'd beg to differ, but okay.
China has for long not been a feudal society, the times of Mao are long gone, but the employee/employer relationships haven't changed much (though as far as i know it's worse for foreign companies), 996 work schedule is still a thing (or is it western propaganda too? If it is, what's the truth?), so pardon me for not believing the socialist project narrative uncritically.
China’s mode of production is currently capitalism but they are a communist/socialist country because it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoise
And how does the DotP manifests itself in China?