They disagree with your lots manipulative usage of that statement, China is good despite being capitalist just like voting for capitalist Bernie was good. You morons think your arguing with Stalinist but you're so goddamn imperialistic you don't realize your arguing with your fellow Keynesians
Because Bernie’s liberalism was widely accepted by the left, in fact the whole harm reduction narrative is a type of liberalism that is widely accepted by the left, if it works for Bernie and his lost vision for the American empire then it works for china
You're ignoring the vast differences in circumstances between Bernie - a demsoc hugely outnumbered in the halls of American power by neolibs and fascists - and the Chinese "communist" party, which absolutely dominates political power in China and has no legitimate reason not to just do socialism, other than the fact that they're capitalists.
and the Chinese “communist” party, which absolutely dominates political power in China and has no legitimate reason not to just do socialism
Despite the fact that like bernie, China also has to deal with American Power and hegemony, you dumbasses didn't learn shit from the fall of the Soviet Union, China did
Edit: And to say nothing of fact that despite being "ultracapitalists" China is the most fiscally decentralized state in the entire world with 80 cent of every dollar spent at a local level on top of having the strictest capital controls in the world, yeah that sounds like a capitalist dream
America is a dying empire which is completely dependent on Chinese manufacturing so if the Chinese government had any interest in actually doing socialism they could easily have done it by now.
Also, FYI socialism has to do with the relationship of workers to the means of production. 80% of money being spent at the local level couldn't possibly be less relevant.
I never called them ultracapitalists so idk why you're putting that in quotes, that's an obvious straw man. If you're not gonna discuss in good faith please leave me the fuck alone until there's a way to block people on this platform.
They're dependent on chinese manufacturing precisely because China decided to do a capitalism. That decision came with a huge stack of pros and cons, but it's wrong to suggest that they should have continued being poor and socialist like in the 80s and then waited 50 or so years for the downfall of the US. The liberal reforms are the exact reason that they are so developed today, and the reason the have the US by the balls.
I don't think that it was the only decision they could have made, but an alt-history discussion isn't likely to get us very far cause who the fuck knows what would have happened.
thank you for finally bringing up an interesting point, which the other dude spamming my replies has steadfastly refused to do.
anyway, assuming that your description of the party's mindset is accurate, why are they taking it for granted that its impossible to develop and industrialize under a socialist mode of production, when the USSR proved that isn't ture? that feels like a really convoluted masterplan type of explanation when the simple explanation of "they're doing capitalism because they're capitalists" is sitting right there
I don't have enough information to get a clear picture on your question, still working on finding that out. There is definitely a liberal wing of the CCP, which Deng was obviously a part of. They are not communists through and through. I think it was an excellent strategic decision, since they are in a really good spot now, but in short, I don't think the explanation is very simple.
As to "why not do it like the USSR?" I guess I'd say that they did that for 30 years or so, and didn't get very far.
America is a dying empire which is completely dependent on Chinese manufacturing so if the Chinese government had any interest in actually doing socialism they could easily have done it by now
I mean that's obviously not true but go off I guess lol
Also, FYI socialism has to do with the relationship of workers to the means of production. 80% of money being spent at the local level couldn’t possibly be less relevant.
Its relevant when it benefits workers and is geared towards transitional developmentalism you dogmatic amateur, decentralizing capital control and building the forces of production is absolutely crucial to socialism
I never called them ultracapitalists so idk why you’re putting that in quotes
Get a load of Sherlock over here
You'd be surprised how many people here disagree with this simple obviously correct statement
They disagree with your lots manipulative usage of that statement, China is good despite being capitalist just like voting for capitalist Bernie was good. You morons think your arguing with Stalinist but you're so goddamn imperialistic you don't realize your arguing with your fellow Keynesians
"China is good despite being capitalist"
Lib
Did you vote for bernie u fake-ass commie?
No I didn't. Why do people keep comparing Bernie and china
Edit: NVM my question I see now that you're the same person who made the same comparison the other day
Because Bernie’s liberalism was widely accepted by the left, in fact the whole harm reduction narrative is a type of liberalism that is widely accepted by the left, if it works for Bernie and his lost vision for the American empire then it works for china
You're ignoring the vast differences in circumstances between Bernie - a demsoc hugely outnumbered in the halls of American power by neolibs and fascists - and the Chinese "communist" party, which absolutely dominates political power in China and has no legitimate reason not to just do socialism, other than the fact that they're capitalists.
Despite the fact that like bernie, China also has to deal with American Power and hegemony, you dumbasses didn't learn shit from the fall of the Soviet Union, China did
Edit: And to say nothing of fact that despite being "ultracapitalists" China is the most fiscally decentralized state in the entire world with 80 cent of every dollar spent at a local level on top of having the strictest capital controls in the world, yeah that sounds like a capitalist dream
America is a dying empire which is completely dependent on Chinese manufacturing so if the Chinese government had any interest in actually doing socialism they could easily have done it by now.
Also, FYI socialism has to do with the relationship of workers to the means of production. 80% of money being spent at the local level couldn't possibly be less relevant.
I never called them ultracapitalists so idk why you're putting that in quotes, that's an obvious straw man. If you're not gonna discuss in good faith please leave me the fuck alone until there's a way to block people on this platform.
They're dependent on chinese manufacturing precisely because China decided to do a capitalism. That decision came with a huge stack of pros and cons, but it's wrong to suggest that they should have continued being poor and socialist like in the 80s and then waited 50 or so years for the downfall of the US. The liberal reforms are the exact reason that they are so developed today, and the reason the have the US by the balls.
I don't think that it was the only decision they could have made, but an alt-history discussion isn't likely to get us very far cause who the fuck knows what would have happened.
thank you for finally bringing up an interesting point, which the other dude spamming my replies has steadfastly refused to do.
anyway, assuming that your description of the party's mindset is accurate, why are they taking it for granted that its impossible to develop and industrialize under a socialist mode of production, when the USSR proved that isn't ture? that feels like a really convoluted masterplan type of explanation when the simple explanation of "they're doing capitalism because they're capitalists" is sitting right there
I don't have enough information to get a clear picture on your question, still working on finding that out. There is definitely a liberal wing of the CCP, which Deng was obviously a part of. They are not communists through and through. I think it was an excellent strategic decision, since they are in a really good spot now, but in short, I don't think the explanation is very simple.
As to "why not do it like the USSR?" I guess I'd say that they did that for 30 years or so, and didn't get very far.
I mean that's obviously not true but go off I guess lol
Its relevant when it benefits workers and is geared towards transitional developmentalism you dogmatic amateur, decentralizing capital control and building the forces of production is absolutely crucial to socialism
You implied it lol relax geez
I didn't imply shit
I told you to fuck off so please just fuck off