Socialism

7017 readers

31 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

dessalines@lemmy.ml

Is China actually socialist? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by Silly_Goose@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Asking this because i’m a newbie in the topic of socialism and i want to understand whether China is actually considerable socialist or not. A lot of the stuff we see are Chinese brands, owned by privates (at least i think so, correct me if i’m wrong), making tons of capital. So what’s actually going on?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sad you got downvoted for asking a completely fair question. Its naive to pretend that who wield a lot of capital do not have more influence than the average citizen. China isn't perfect and it does have an issue with liberals here and there - at least from my very limited knowledge.
I would also like to know how the Billionaires of China can be said to exert no more influence than the average citizen, beyond just a vague gesture to the fact that sometimes a Billionaire will be arrested - presumably if they go too far or get too bold. Thats what I would assume anyway, so I'd love to actually know.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Oh, I don't think anyone believes that people in positions of power have equivalent influence as the average voter. That's not going to be true in any society ever. Even in a perfectly flat world government the people who live somewhere should more say over what impacts them than their vote totals would allow.

Billionaires are billionaires because they have control over billions in assets. Simply by that alone they have more influence than a voter or even a dozen voters. However, billionaires do not have the political influence to use their power to entrench their power, only to use their power within boundaries set by the state on behalf of the people.

Mao put forth a very interesting theory centered on the question "how do we define the people?" His position was that while they were kicking the Japanese out of China, all Chinese were the people. But, once the Japanese are repelled, the people can only mean the peasant masses and the proletariat, and no longer includes the bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie, and the supporters of them. In this way he mirrors Carl Schmitt in defining the political as the ability to define friend and enemy (interestingly so since we do not currently believe there was any way either thinker was able to be influenced by the other).

In contemporary China, while there is open and acknowledged collaboration with the bourgeoisie, it is also openly acknowledged that the bourgeoisie are not a part of "the people" and the party works for the people to bring about the conditions for universal liberation through the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes.