15
Is China actually socialist? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
27 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
[–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

...ok....and now that you have said that do you have anything to direct me to further understand unequal exchange AND/OR to further help me understand how ALL members of the Chinese proletariat do not in some type of way get fucked over by unequal exchange please?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    The prolewiki page on unequal exchange is a good primer. China itself is harmed by unequal exchange, because it's primarily something higher wage countries benefit from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    ...but you just said that no members of the Chinese proletariat are harmed by unequal exchange....wot?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (10 children)

    China isn't capitalist, what's the point of sharing documents on unequal exchange and expecting a ban? China is exploited by the west to a decent degree, but they are developing rapidly and undermine that very system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    whats the point of 'developing rapidly' if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so? 🤷🏿‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    Marxism is not a moral philosophy. The purpose of rapidly developing is to develop into the conditions where there will not be antagonistic contradictions between socialized ownership and the level of development of the productive forces. The base of marketization is in highly decentralized production, the base of socialized ownership is in highly centralized and developed productive forces. The proletariat of China has consistently been uplifted decade after decade.

    Further, unequal exchange is generally about international trade, not internal trade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    ...ok....

    Now whats the point of ‘developing rapidly’ if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so? 🤷🏿‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    I genuinely do not get your point. The purpose of developing rapidly is to uplift the proletariat rapidly and achieve communism faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    …ok…

    Now whats the point of ‘developing rapidly’ if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so?

    (Also Im still waiting on your sources for me to read about unequal exchange ... 🍿🤭)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    I gave you a source already, and the purpose of developing the productive forces rapidly is to reach the level at which exploitation is economically unfeasible, when there will not be an antagonistic contradiction between social ownership and decentralized production. I don't know what your point is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    it says address not found.

    Also ...that source isnt a study.... How can you debunk a study without one of your own?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    That source is just an explanation of Unequal Exchange, which is an entirely different thing that what you think it is. What is your point, exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •