I think there is wisdom and good ideas present in most and probably all societies on earth. But many of the dominant ideas from world governments aren’t really meant to improve the lives of the people as a collective—they are meant to protect or expand the power of the ruling class in that state.

Given the well-documented failures of current systems of government across the world, I agree that pluralism is valuable so that we can assess which systems lead to better outcomes.

deleted by creator

Trying to phrase this in a way that won’t spark an argument: no country represents a pinnacle of achievement. The very idea is absurd.

This isn’t the gotcha that you think. Party and business elites (to the extent that these two groups are even distinct—in many cases there are overlapping members) cooperate to maintain control over the economy and political system at the expense of working Chinese. In recent years, Xi Jinping’s tightened grip on power has involved the elimination of some rivals from the ruling class, but he has not changed its overall structure, merely eliminating those deemed threatening and replacing them with allies. But we’ve seen many examples of countries where totalitarian dictatorships coexist with capitalism. Though the capitalists often have more power collectively, as long as they are allowed control of the economy and fabulous wealth, it’s not worth the risk of resisting the president, Führer, chairman, or whatever he wants to call himself.

I’m familiar with and agree with these criticisms of republican democracy in the West. But what you don’t seem to understand is that the situation in China is not materially different. In fact, the idea that China is socialist is actually also Western propaganda—and very successful propaganda at that. Most informed people can see that China is not a good place to live for ordinary people, and by labeling this system socialism, it confuses people into believing that socialism is a bad economic system. This is a big reason we have not had a real socialist movement for the past 100 years. The west was able to successfully associate the term with unpopular totalitarian governments, even though they never allowed any kind of real worker control or autonomy. For example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY. These films were effective because people could see that workers under Stalin or Mao did not have appreciably more control over their own lives or prosperity than workers in the US.

But I am interested in your claim that Chinese workers have more of a voice than we do in the west. Others have merely attempted to assert China is definitionally socialist or distract with irrelevant and cherry-picked economic statistics. Can you substantiate this claim? In my view this is the heart of our disagreement. From where I am I do not see much to suggest that Chinese workers have any say at all in political or economic decision-making but if that is incorrect there must be evidence.

I’m not slandering you, just expressing skepticism at your own interest in constructive conversation and explaining why I don’t value your book recommendation very highly.

As to the rest of this, it is again much too long to read in its entirety but it seems to come down to the same economic growth metrics that are used to justify neoliberal economics in every country. Yes, a small fraction of the wealth falls down to the poor and by some metrics this leaves them better off. This is not socialism in Western countries and it is not socialism in China. In fact, these are the same reasons people supported far right politicians like Trump or Hitler. If we concentrate power in the hands of the people who know better, they will grow the whole economy and we will all get richer, right? It doesn’t matter if the ruling class seizes most of the wealth and power, now you can buy two toys for your kids instead of one!

The global definition of poverty is an especially misleading metric since it doesn’t actually measure people’s material conditions, just “dollars per day” which is often only tangentially related to actual well-being. See this paper for more information: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169

Notably:

The results of this method demonstrate there is often a significant divergence between the poverty rate as defined by the World Bank’s $1.90 method and the BNPL. Consider the case of China, for example. According to the $1.90 method, the poverty rate in China fell from 66% in 1990 to 19% in 2005, suggesting capitalist reforms delivered dramatic improvements (World Bank 2021). However, if we instead measure incomes against the BNPL, we find poverty increased during this period, from 0.2% in 1990 (one of the lowest figures in the world) to 24% in 2005, with a peak of 68% in 1995 (data from Moatsos, 2021).3 This reflects an increase in the relative price of food as China’s socialist provisioning systems were dismantled (Li, 2016). It is likely that something similar occurred across the global South during the 19th century, as colonial interventions undermined communal provisioning systems. As a result, the $1.90 PPP line likely reflects a changing standard of welfare during the period that the Ravallion/Pinker graph refers to.

But even if conditions did improve during some periods, none of this means there isn’t a better economic system, nor does it make any country where conditions improve socialist. There have been periods of economic improvement in many capitalist countries, partly because pure capitalism is extremely difficult to implement and maintain, so most capitalist countries do allow for some socialist practices to exist. Again, socialism means proletarian control of the means of production, something that no one in these conversations has even attempted to argue is happening in China. Workers in China, like workers in all capitalist countries, have very little say over their own working conditions and economic decision making. This is extremely obvious from the fact that corporate structures in China are very similar to elsewhere in the world; a structure that is incompatible with socialism.

I’m not spending 25 dollars to win an internet argument but I would consider reading it if you have a free way. But from my experience debating you previously, you have a tendency to post sources that do not support your claims at all, and often contradict them.

China is following the essentially the same development path as other capitalist countries so I’m not sure what you mean by this. In recent years it has become increasingly nationalistic, imperialist, expansionist, and staggering wealth inequality continues to develop and entrench. Barring a real bottom-up movement for equality I expect these types of governments to gradually slide towards fascism.

Isn’t it though? If the goal of China’s economic policy is to avoid the accumulation of capital, they are failing miserably. China has more billionaires and more economic inequality than almost any country on earth—including classic capitalist countries like the US.

Even if we agree to disagree on whether China is capitalist, it just doesn’t resemble socialism in its original conception in any way. Working people have no control over industry or the government, and both exercise repressive controls on any movement towards such a system. Recent reforms have moved things further in that direction by enabling loyal party capitalists to accumulate huge amounts of wealth at the expense of workers, and as Xi Jinping continues to strengthen his control of the state apparatus. It’s hard to see how this will lead to socialism unless you are an accelerationist.

Well, feel free to suggest a term you think fits better, but I think it fits, even if it is clearly a different flavor of capitalism than the US or other similar economies.

The point is that socialism means the economy is managed by and for the benefit of workers and ordinary people. In all major imperialist countries like the US, China, and the Soviet Union, the economy is managed by and for the ruling elite, whether that may be private owners as in the US, party leadership as in the Soviet system, or a blend of these two as in modern China. That is why I feel they are similar and belong in similar categories, despite some differences.

This will be downvoted by some of the authoritarians who dominate this sub but China is not a socialist country. It is state capitalist. Maybe this will help you understand why it is not a good place to live unless you belong to the upper echelons of society. It’s not so different from the US, despite all the propaganda to convince people otherwise.

Actually you could argue that many Western countries are closer to socialism because they have stronger unions. Not that that makes them socialist on their own but it is at least in line with socialist ideals.

Since numerous rocket volleys have been launched at US ships in the region, this would likely fall under the self defense exception under UN rules.

This assumes the same number of people will use them, just more slowly. But this is quite obviously false if you think it through. If the highway is so backed up you can’t get onto it then you won’t use it, will you? I would be fairly confident that this more than offsets the idling engines. Covid was a big eye opener in realizing how much traffic actually protects us from the real dangers of unfettered high speed traffic.

This individual protest may only have a small effect but it seems we’re seeing more of these as time goes on, and the more often they happen, the bigger the impact.

Regardless of your feelings on the conflict, blocking freeways is beneficial even if done for no reason at all. Urban highways were a mistake and never should have been built. Every minute they continue normal operation is a minute they continue destroying our neighborhoods, poisoning the innocent and vulnerable who live nearby, and destroying the future for our descendants.

So I commend these activists and hope we see more of this.