I interpreted it as a Soviet exceptionalist take as in "Real communism is when the entire economy is planned using Excel, anything else is just sparkling socialism."
no the point is that china isn't totally reliant on central planning, and freagle is right, they have central planning but it really isn't what seperates them from capitalist countries because for instance japan and occupied korea have used central planning to great effect but still ultimately fell to the same woes as other capitalist countries, what makes china different is that they are controlled by a communist party.
what makes china different is that they are controlled by a communist party.
Concretely, what difference is this, though? That it's more democratic and thus the way it directs its comparable level of oversight is more pro-social?
Concretely the difference is that the economy isn't run for the benefit of landlords and oligarchs. Xi's common prosperity, anti-corruption and modernisation campaigns have been run smoothly and successfully because the CPC faces no significant internal coercion from the bourgeoise.
I think the initial misunderstanding can be explained by how weird capitalism has gotten.
The initial point being made is that 'the market model the west keeps peddling' is less efficient than 'state driven central planning'. To counter that with 'to be fair, China doesn't just rely on central planning' is, I think, a fundamentally wrongheaded way to go about it. It assumes that the market model proposed in China has anything to do with the market model proposed in the west. They are completely different models. Precisely because the state planning (which is not just central, political power and action in China is, as it historically has been, also very decentralized) is done under a communist party.
The market model of the west is a form of romantic capitalism which can be deemed libertarian. It has no empirical basis in the history of capitalism or the industrial age. It is nothing more than an excuse to financialize and speculate away while production and transportation chains rot. There has been other forms of capitalism. The american school, the german school, developmentism, colonialism, and so on. All of them concerned themselves with more than just the interests of virtual capital speculation. That the japanese and the south koreans were once closer to China than the washington consensus simply places them in that historical spectrum.
It has no empirical basis in the history of capitalism or the industrial age. It is nothing more than an excuse to financialize and speculate away while production and transportation chains rot
I don't really understand this. this is the natural evolution of capitalism, there's no where else for it to go as the rate of profit continues to fall.
Regardless, I don't think freagles comment actually disagrees with anything else in your comment. If you wanna say it's too open-ended and unclear sure but like I've said elsewhere if it's someone on hexbear or grad you should just ask them to clarify instead of jumping straight to a dunk
Because that is not what I am describing. One thing is the logical conclusion of the economic system. Another entirely is the worldview which sustains said system.
Regardless, I don't think freagles comment actually disagrees with anything else in your comment.
Nor does my comment disagree with the people who perceived freagle's comment to be fundamentally wrong. Which was the point.
I do think the central planning does separate China from other countries that use market forces. It's not the only thing that separates them, but it is a line of demarcation. My point was more nuanced which was that things like product quality and prices couldn't be attributed to central planning directly because China is using markets to develop and coordinate those aspects of the economy. Without that direct attribution, we run the risk of saying "China product quality good and prices and low" and being met with libs saying "because market capitalism works".
Everybody else took it the way you did, I have a tendency to interpret things online in the funniest way possible as a defense against getting mad about basically everything.
I interpreted it as a Soviet exceptionalist take as in "Real communism is when the entire economy is planned using Excel, anything else is just sparkling socialism."
no the point is that china isn't totally reliant on central planning, and freagle is right, they have central planning but it really isn't what seperates them from capitalist countries because for instance japan and occupied korea have used central planning to great effect but still ultimately fell to the same woes as other capitalist countries, what makes china different is that they are controlled by a communist party.
Concretely, what difference is this, though? That it's more democratic and thus the way it directs its comparable level of oversight is more pro-social?
Concretely the difference is that the economy isn't run for the benefit of landlords and oligarchs. Xi's common prosperity, anti-corruption and modernisation campaigns have been run smoothly and successfully because the CPC faces no significant internal coercion from the bourgeoise.
I would say that it is the party does not allow capital to rise above the state
I think the initial misunderstanding can be explained by how weird capitalism has gotten.
The initial point being made is that 'the market model the west keeps peddling' is less efficient than 'state driven central planning'. To counter that with 'to be fair, China doesn't just rely on central planning' is, I think, a fundamentally wrongheaded way to go about it. It assumes that the market model proposed in China has anything to do with the market model proposed in the west. They are completely different models. Precisely because the state planning (which is not just central, political power and action in China is, as it historically has been, also very decentralized) is done under a communist party.
The market model of the west is a form of romantic capitalism which can be deemed libertarian. It has no empirical basis in the history of capitalism or the industrial age. It is nothing more than an excuse to financialize and speculate away while production and transportation chains rot. There has been other forms of capitalism. The american school, the german school, developmentism, colonialism, and so on. All of them concerned themselves with more than just the interests of virtual capital speculation. That the japanese and the south koreans were once closer to China than the washington consensus simply places them in that historical spectrum.
I don't really understand this. this is the natural evolution of capitalism, there's no where else for it to go as the rate of profit continues to fall.
Regardless, I don't think freagles comment actually disagrees with anything else in your comment. If you wanna say it's too open-ended and unclear sure but like I've said elsewhere if it's someone on hexbear or grad you should just ask them to clarify instead of jumping straight to a dunk
Because that is not what I am describing. One thing is the logical conclusion of the economic system. Another entirely is the worldview which sustains said system.
Nor does my comment disagree with the people who perceived freagle's comment to be fundamentally wrong. Which was the point.
I do think the central planning does separate China from other countries that use market forces. It's not the only thing that separates them, but it is a line of demarcation. My point was more nuanced which was that things like product quality and prices couldn't be attributed to central planning directly because China is using markets to develop and coordinate those aspects of the economy. Without that direct attribution, we run the risk of saying "China product quality good and prices and low" and being met with libs saying "because market capitalism works".
Removed by mod
disengage
Removed by mod
Wait, China is run by COMMUNISTS?? I had no idea, thanks for clearing that up.
no problem!
Idk maybe i'm the idiot
Everybody else took it the way you did, I have a tendency to interpret things online in the funniest way possible as a defense against getting mad about basically everything.
that's probably a good outlook tho