Hi Hexbear! I’ve been lurking here ever since you federated with Blahaj. I was already a chapo listener for a year, so it was kind of a twist of fate. Anyways, the other day I heard Matt Christman say something on one of his Cushvlogs that opposes the general sentiment of people here. He said, “China isn’t socialist, they’re not even social democrat; they are state capitalist.” I know you all here uphold that China is AES so I would like an explanation as to why China isn’t state capitalist or a social democracy. Why is/what makes China socialist?
Thank you!
In short, China doesn't allow their capitalists to wield any political power. This article is great for a more detailed explanation.
https://redsails.org/losurdo-on-china/
He's right, China has a capitalist economy. It is, however, a dictatorship of the proletariat where the state does not allow capital to do as it wishes except when it benefits the economic development of the nation as a whole. They've made progress towards independence from the interests of international capital, and every year they get closer to the point where they can inform capitalists they are no longer necessary
Biiiiiig question. For this I'm not going to use my own words, comrades have addressed it numerous times in excellent ways.
Firstly Bayarea415's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" video was one of the best primers on this. But unfortunately his youtube was closed down in blackmail attempts over exposing his identity. Mirrors may exist which is why I'm mentioning it but out of respect probably shouldn't link to them. If you're out there Bay, I miss your work immensely.
This video featuring a number of great comrades you may have come across before (such as Vijay Prashad) is worth your time: https://youtu.be/_jlkWQa7MSY
This is an excellent essay on China's current stage and where it's going, also from Vijay Prashad's org: https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2023-2-socialism-3-in-china/
Why is/what makes China socialist?
This question relies on some dogma for some of these people. They define socialism strictly in the sense of having a fully socialist fully centralised economy without markets. Anything that uses markets is thus instead "state capitalist" to them, they seize upon Lenin's use of this phrase for propaganda purposes and to confuse people, I wish he had never used it.
In the loosest possible terms, Socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. This stage begins at the moment in time that the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie and seizes power for itself. Everything from this point onwards is socialism, and does not cease to be socialism until the proletariat loses control of the state in counter-revolution by the bourgeoisie. With this understanding of socialism you can see why we just say "China is socialist" instead of "China is state-capitalist". The latter is a confusing and not-useful term that is used by anticommunists that seek to deny the path that AES (actually existing socialism) countries are on. They are working towards the end goal.
Is it a fully socialised fully centrally planned economy? No. Does that make it not a socialist country? No. It is a country with mixed markets, where 60% of the economy is state owned and the rest is allowed private involvement. They walk this path in order to not be shut off from the rest of the world, to allow foreign capitalists some investment in the economy in order that they have personal interests to prevent war with them.
TL;DR: This all comes down to them demanding that the "socialist" label only be given to those with a specific economic setup. While others give that label to any country that achieves revolution and installs a DOTP - dictatorship of the proletariat.
