Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist (as if that's the source of all good and doing the right thing isn't hard, and a process), or how much we should place all the blame for all human rights violations at the feet of capitalism and colonialism (which... capitalism exasperates all problems, but it's not the root cause of all evil. Evil predates capitalism).
And I'm happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves. But you don't need to be an absolute butt about it. What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that'll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who's on your side?
On what do you base this statement?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
it’s not the first such program and they don’t have a good track record.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they're doing it, but they're still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there's no denying their political orientation.
And I’m happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves.
Okay?
But you don’t need to be an absolute butt about it.
This feels ironic in light of your prior statement. I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that’ll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who’s on your side?
Are you referring to a discussion I'm having outside of my thread with you?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
It sounds like if you're using that source to draw that conclusion then you have added your own interpretation, and that's why I'm curious where you get your interpretation.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
Which other programs has China done and their track record with it? That's what I was asking.
lol, this is a seriously terrible take. They are capitalist, full stop. How in gods name can you claim they're communist? They have private enterprise, free markets, class, private property. They are capitalist.
Seems like they're as capitalist as they need to be to build deterrence and avoid outside interference. Declaring themselves explicitly communist and behaving that way 100%, with economic success, would have been too much of a threat and too easy to unite against.
Something interesting from a recent (lib) Sinica pod: Capital funding for business and industry from the banks very much follows central policy objectives/directions rather than market forces. Any failures are absorbed by the heretofore (I'm leaving it in) growth in the system. Sometimes ostensible failures on a local or regional level can continue to be funded if they are perceived to have a national benefit, a characteristic you don't often see in free market systems.
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they’re doing it, but they’re still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there’s no denying their political orientation.
Ok, this is just criminally incorrect. They have free markets and billionaires. How can you call that Communist? It's not even Socialist. It betrayed Socialism under that revisionary motherfucker Deng, only under Mao was it truly socialist.
Besides, no country has been Communist. Ever. Only Socialist countries led by a Communist party. Communism is the final stage of development after Socialism following the abolishment of class, money, and the state.
I would contend that China is currently more akin to a social democracy, but one under the control of a Communist Party. They are moving towards the construction of socialism, as indicated by their goals and their progress towards them, but are currently not explicitly socialist
They are moving towards the construction of socialism
I don't think they're doing that either. I give about 1 in 99999999999999 odds that they'll convert to communism in 2050 like it says in their constitution. It'll be changed.
No, their internal documents and plans essentially outline that they are currently taking steps to modernise their country, as well as mitigate the inequality inherent in accumulation, before beginning to transition to socialism, and they are on track for the first two.
For instance, they are taking active steps to raise people out of poverty, including providing reliable water, internet and electricity sources to rural areas, providing free hygiene education, general education, allocating doctors to these families, and moving people (who want it!) into furnished houses free of charge. Their poverty alleviation scheme has moved hundreds of millions of people away from poverty, to the extent that a huge majority of the nation's population is no longer in poverty. Poverty eradication was planned to be completed by the end of 2020 ish, and is on track to do so. Afterwards, their goal is to reduce/eliminate wealth inequality by 2035, so that they are able to move into a higher stage of socialism in 2050.
In terms of modernisation, I would say they are also on track for their Made in China 2025 goal, which involves shifting the Chinese economy away from low level manufacturing to high-fidelity tech manufacturing, which has manifested itself as the world leader in 5G and HSR.
I bring all this up to highlight both that the CPC actively works towards (and is successful in) fulfilling their goal of transitioning toward socialism. Socialism, as much as I want it to be, is not a switch to be turned on. It is a world historical process which brings with it contradictions to be addressed. Might goals be postponed? Yeah, but it's based on metrics, rather than wanting to delude the Chinese people or dogma. I think to disregard the resolution of these contradictions is rather dismissive of the 90 million members of the CPC.
Socialism, as much as I want it to be, is not a switch to be turned on. It is a world historical process which brings with it contradictions to be addressed.
See the thing is, for a while, they didn't need to have some sort of gradual transition to socialism because they actually achieved it under Mao. Under Deng and his successors they moved away from it. So I just won't buy the arguments that it's a gradual process because Russia didn't need to go through all that shit when it had its revolution, and China already did achieve socialism before Deng reversed history.
If you think China isn't communist because it's a state then that's a meaningless thing to say because it's definitionally impossible for it to be otherwise. The alternative, and what everyone means, is that China is run by communists. He literally said "their political orientation." So either you can disagree that this is their orientation or disagree that they're effectively fighting for communism in some way. Again, he literally said "their political orientation" lmfao
I disagree with both. Identifying as a certain political ideology is meaningless unless you're actually fighting to have that ideology realized. With the logic you're using the Nazis were Socialist because they said they were.
Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist (as if that's the source of all good and doing the right thing isn't hard, and a process), or how much we should place all the blame for all human rights violations at the feet of capitalism and colonialism (which... capitalism exasperates all problems, but it's not the root cause of all evil. Evil predates capitalism).
And I'm happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves. But you don't need to be an absolute butt about it. What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that'll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who's on your side?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they're doing it, but they're still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there's no denying their political orientation.
Okay?
This feels ironic in light of your prior statement. I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
Are you referring to a discussion I'm having outside of my thread with you?
It sounds like if you're using that source to draw that conclusion then you have added your own interpretation, and that's why I'm curious where you get your interpretation.
Which other programs has China done and their track record with it? That's what I was asking.
lol, this is a seriously terrible take. They are capitalist, full stop. How in gods name can you claim they're communist? They have private enterprise, free markets, class, private property. They are capitalist.
Seems like they're as capitalist as they need to be to build deterrence and avoid outside interference. Declaring themselves explicitly communist and behaving that way 100%, with economic success, would have been too much of a threat and too easy to unite against.
Something interesting from a recent (lib) Sinica pod: Capital funding for business and industry from the banks very much follows central policy objectives/directions rather than market forces. Any failures are absorbed by the heretofore (I'm leaving it in) growth in the system. Sometimes ostensible failures on a local or regional level can continue to be funded if they are perceived to have a national benefit, a characteristic you don't often see in free market systems.
Ok, this is just criminally incorrect. They have free markets and billionaires. How can you call that Communist? It's not even Socialist. It betrayed Socialism under that revisionary motherfucker Deng, only under Mao was it truly socialist.
Besides, no country has been Communist. Ever. Only Socialist countries led by a Communist party. Communism is the final stage of development after Socialism following the abolishment of class, money, and the state.
I would contend that China is currently more akin to a social democracy, but one under the control of a Communist Party. They are moving towards the construction of socialism, as indicated by their goals and their progress towards them, but are currently not explicitly socialist
I don't think they're doing that either. I give about 1 in 99999999999999 odds that they'll convert to communism in 2050 like it says in their constitution. It'll be changed.
No, their internal documents and plans essentially outline that they are currently taking steps to modernise their country, as well as mitigate the inequality inherent in accumulation, before beginning to transition to socialism, and they are on track for the first two.
For instance, they are taking active steps to raise people out of poverty, including providing reliable water, internet and electricity sources to rural areas, providing free hygiene education, general education, allocating doctors to these families, and moving people (who want it!) into furnished houses free of charge. Their poverty alleviation scheme has moved hundreds of millions of people away from poverty, to the extent that a huge majority of the nation's population is no longer in poverty. Poverty eradication was planned to be completed by the end of 2020 ish, and is on track to do so. Afterwards, their goal is to reduce/eliminate wealth inequality by 2035, so that they are able to move into a higher stage of socialism in 2050.
In terms of modernisation, I would say they are also on track for their Made in China 2025 goal, which involves shifting the Chinese economy away from low level manufacturing to high-fidelity tech manufacturing, which has manifested itself as the world leader in 5G and HSR.
I bring all this up to highlight both that the CPC actively works towards (and is successful in) fulfilling their goal of transitioning toward socialism. Socialism, as much as I want it to be, is not a switch to be turned on. It is a world historical process which brings with it contradictions to be addressed. Might goals be postponed? Yeah, but it's based on metrics, rather than wanting to delude the Chinese people or dogma. I think to disregard the resolution of these contradictions is rather dismissive of the 90 million members of the CPC.
See the thing is, for a while, they didn't need to have some sort of gradual transition to socialism because they actually achieved it under Mao. Under Deng and his successors they moved away from it. So I just won't buy the arguments that it's a gradual process because Russia didn't need to go through all that shit when it had its revolution, and China already did achieve socialism before Deng reversed history.
If you think China isn't communist because it's a state then that's a meaningless thing to say because it's definitionally impossible for it to be otherwise. The alternative, and what everyone means, is that China is run by communists. He literally said "their political orientation." So either you can disagree that this is their orientation or disagree that they're effectively fighting for communism in some way. Again, he literally said "their political orientation" lmfao
Except they're not fighting for Communism. They're moving further and further away from it with more market reforms.
I'm not sure where I said they are!
I disagree with both. Identifying as a certain political ideology is meaningless unless you're actually fighting to have that ideology realized. With the logic you're using the Nazis were Socialist because they said they were.