Why is the threat gone? Cultural and political momentum died down while USSR was around and USSR being dismantled for sure killed off a huge chunk of the momentum and strength, but it’s hard to believe the ideology would be dead and never coming back
Modern liberals drank their own kool-aid and literally thought it was “The End of History”, and the future would just be liberal democracy, with some technocratic tweaks. These are people who genuinely believed freedom for capitalists was intrinsically tied to human rights and that capitalism eventually means the best outcomes for everyone. They’d just watched the USSR fall, and were so sure China was either going to embrace free markets and western-style democracy or stagnate until they were overthrown and replaced by a government who did.
They saw China using markets and didn’t understand the fundamental difference between markets being wielded by capitalists, developing the means of production in rare, specific cases where it helps them concentrate power and markets being wielded by workers to for the singular purpose of developing the means of production.
Indeed! I am hopeful that they do actually represent the proletariat, and there is some great evidence for that. I just do not know enough about the internal politics. They certainly do not represent the capitalists.
The state isn’t outside class struggle, so it helps to understand that if they do not serve capitalists, who else could they serve? The peasantry are nearly gone at this point, leaving the petite bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. We struck out the big bourgeoisie, leaving petite and proletariat, and what helps narrow this down is that the well-being of the whole of society is what is prioritized, which benefits primarily the proletariat, and that their goal is collectivization of production and distribution, which hurts the petite bourgeoisie.
The commanding heights of China’s economy are publicly owned, and the private corporations that do exist are heavily controlled by “golden shares” the CPC owns. Billionaires exist because private property still exists, and private property exists because markets are useful for socializing production. The social surplus is still oriented towards socialist development. The marketization of small and medium firms is in service of socializing production so that it may develop and be folded into the public sector, not for the sake of capitalist class interests.
I dunno, I could see private property existing without letting people hoard billions. It’s just very disappointing to see that the prime example of today’s socialism has billionaires running megacorps.
Work in progress I suppose but understandable how to some that sorta takes the enthusiasm for the ideology out of it for some
The socialist market economy in China was a return to more classical Marxist economics than the dogmatic attempt to collectivize even small proprietors under the Gang of Four.
I mean more what became after the economic liberalization. Billionaires and huge private companies and stuff. That’s probably partly what the people were expecting to see in the future.
Calling the socialist market economy “liberalization” isn’t really accurate, as it implies the opposite direction, dogmatic collectivization, would be “more communist.” It was a course correction. Either way, western liberals began projecting onto the PRC’s economy what they expected of a capitalist economy, and now that it’s increasingly evident that this is fundamentally incorrect they are scrambling to come to a new analysis of why China works and why the west is dying.
Nobody called China a paradise, but it is projection to say China is “extremely xenophobic to anyone who isn’t Han Chinese.” By proportion of the population, Han Chinese are some of the least represented in the NPC, with minority groups given regional autonomy, minority protections, and affirmative action that goes beyond western protections.
Further, the rights the west does have over China, such as with regards to LGBTQ rights, are improving over time in China (and are largely regional, rather than state-wide). Meanwhile, the west seems to be falling backwards.
You’re getting your information from anti-communist & anti-China propaganda that our government, corporate media, and NGOs (which are funded by our government and corporations) produce & propagate.
Why is the threat gone? Cultural and political momentum died down while USSR was around and USSR being dismantled for sure killed off a huge chunk of the momentum and strength, but it’s hard to believe the ideology would be dead and never coming back
Modern liberals drank their own kool-aid and literally thought it was “The End of History”, and the future would just be liberal democracy, with some technocratic tweaks. These are people who genuinely believed freedom for capitalists was intrinsically tied to human rights and that capitalism eventually means the best outcomes for everyone. They’d just watched the USSR fall, and were so sure China was either going to embrace free markets and western-style democracy or stagnate until they were overthrown and replaced by a government who did.
I mean they were sorta right about the Chinese free market thing, but only partly and without the Western style democracy.
They saw China using markets and didn’t understand the fundamental difference between markets being wielded by capitalists, developing the means of production in rare, specific cases where it helps them concentrate power and markets being wielded by workers to for the singular purpose of developing the means of production.
I meant more how they’re now where there’s billionaires there running huge private companies etc
Yeah, but unlike the US, those billionaires do not control the government. The government is controlled by the CCP.
It’s the dictatorship of the (people who say they represent) the proletariat. Not the dictatorship of the people who buy the most politicians.
Yaaayyyy…
To clarify, the PRC is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The CPC is the organization of the proletariat, not its own distinct class.
Indeed! I am hopeful that they do actually represent the proletariat, and there is some great evidence for that. I just do not know enough about the internal politics. They certainly do not represent the capitalists.
The state isn’t outside class struggle, so it helps to understand that if they do not serve capitalists, who else could they serve? The peasantry are nearly gone at this point, leaving the petite bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. We struck out the big bourgeoisie, leaving petite and proletariat, and what helps narrow this down is that the well-being of the whole of society is what is prioritized, which benefits primarily the proletariat, and that their goal is collectivization of production and distribution, which hurts the petite bourgeoisie.
It’s just a very capitalistic seeming thing to have billionaires and huge private corporations. Something familiar to many capitalist countries.
The commanding heights of China’s economy are publicly owned, and the private corporations that do exist are heavily controlled by “golden shares” the CPC owns. Billionaires exist because private property still exists, and private property exists because markets are useful for socializing production. The social surplus is still oriented towards socialist development. The marketization of small and medium firms is in service of socializing production so that it may develop and be folded into the public sector, not for the sake of capitalist class interests.
I dunno, I could see private property existing without letting people hoard billions. It’s just very disappointing to see that the prime example of today’s socialism has billionaires running megacorps.
Work in progress I suppose but understandable how to some that sorta takes the enthusiasm for the ideology out of it for some
The socialist market economy in China was a return to more classical Marxist economics than the dogmatic attempt to collectivize even small proprietors under the Gang of Four.
I mean more what became after the economic liberalization. Billionaires and huge private companies and stuff. That’s probably partly what the people were expecting to see in the future.
Calling the socialist market economy “liberalization” isn’t really accurate, as it implies the opposite direction, dogmatic collectivization, would be “more communist.” It was a course correction. Either way, western liberals began projecting onto the PRC’s economy what they expected of a capitalist economy, and now that it’s increasingly evident that this is fundamentally incorrect they are scrambling to come to a new analysis of why China works and why the west is dying.
I just mean it in the sense of relaxation or freeing the market for more private operators.
I understand what you meant, I just took it a bit further as stating that alone gives a different impression from what actually happened and why.
Removed by mod
Nobody called China a paradise, but it is projection to say China is “extremely xenophobic to anyone who isn’t Han Chinese.” By proportion of the population, Han Chinese are some of the least represented in the NPC, with minority groups given regional autonomy, minority protections, and affirmative action that goes beyond western protections.
Further, the rights the west does have over China, such as with regards to LGBTQ rights, are improving over time in China (and are largely regional, rather than state-wide). Meanwhile, the west seems to be falling backwards.
Removed by mod
Yes, China does crack down on certain bourgeois freedoms, because the bourgeoisie are kept on a short leash, when they’re allowed to exist at all.
No, China’s government is not xenophobic to its own people. Some people may be bigoted, including some Han people, but you can find bigotry anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China
You’re getting your information from anti-communist & anti-China propaganda that our government, corporate media, and NGOs (which are funded by our government and corporations) produce & propagate.
No, they were wrong.
The liberal socialist wave of China 1980-2015
should be seen as the inverse
of the social democratic wave of the US 1930-1975.
Both ditched it once it became unnecessary to preserve their socio-economic structure.