Soviet economy openly attempted to overtake the US in consumption standards, which is 1) difficult when you wanna do it for everyone instead of abusing exploitation of immigrants and unequal exchange 2) undesirable because the objective of socialism isn't to have more consumer goods (as long as the material needs of people are covered).
What’s the difference between material needs and treats? You can’t end your provision of people’s needs partway, isn’t this why China is taking the “poverty isn’t socialism” road?
Material need: everyone having access to quality housing, food, energy, clothing, and appliances that make their lives easier such as fridges or washing machines.
Treat: 24 different brands of frozen pizza, cheap jeans and fast fashion, changing your TV every 4 years, and hear me out, a car per household.
The line is arbitrary, but then again morality is subjective.
As for China taking the "poverty isn't socialism line", while I agree with the idea that communism isn't a poverty cult, I carefully disagree with the methodology of the CPC in terms of economics until they decide to eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class in their country, and to bring socialism on a worldwide scale. I don't know how far I can trust the CPC in their intentions to do so, but the modern Chinese state is not to me an example of the society I want, and I will accept that it's a worthwhile path to socialism when they actually do the turn and eliminate the bourgeois and move towards a centrally planned economy. My hope is that I'm wrong and China will finally step up in the following decades after overtaking the US
Prevent it through prohibition of private media, and don't turn the economy of your country into a treat competition between you and the US
Elaborate exactly on which cases did that happen? That seems awfully specific
Soviet economy openly attempted to overtake the US in consumption standards, which is 1) difficult when you wanna do it for everyone instead of abusing exploitation of immigrants and unequal exchange 2) undesirable because the objective of socialism isn't to have more consumer goods (as long as the material needs of people are covered).
What’s the difference between material needs and treats? You can’t end your provision of people’s needs partway, isn’t this why China is taking the “poverty isn’t socialism” road?
Material need: everyone having access to quality housing, food, energy, clothing, and appliances that make their lives easier such as fridges or washing machines.
Treat: 24 different brands of frozen pizza, cheap jeans and fast fashion, changing your TV every 4 years, and hear me out, a car per household.
The line is arbitrary, but then again morality is subjective.
As for China taking the "poverty isn't socialism line", while I agree with the idea that communism isn't a poverty cult, I carefully disagree with the methodology of the CPC in terms of economics until they decide to eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class in their country, and to bring socialism on a worldwide scale. I don't know how far I can trust the CPC in their intentions to do so, but the modern Chinese state is not to me an example of the society I want, and I will accept that it's a worthwhile path to socialism when they actually do the turn and eliminate the bourgeois and move towards a centrally planned economy. My hope is that I'm wrong and China will finally step up in the following decades after overtaking the US