Sure.
And this is the truth about China and Communism:
what does this have to do with houseless people?
Some nice whataboutism you got there.
Yeah it would be crazy if state security forces regularly beat, maimed, shot, and killed citizens for simply exercising their rights to exist on a daily basis.
Oh sorry that’s the US, dang shithole countries messing up my memory.
China’s not communist It’s state capitalism with a single party rule.
What part about China looks to you like the means of production are controlled by the working class?
What part of the Chinese Communist party do you see opposing the ownership of businesses or social stratification?
Communism is just a red herring. It’s what a lot of fascists write on the label of their revolution to make it easier to consolidate power. China about as communist as North Korea is a “democratic People’s Republic”.
You might want to consider reading China Has Billionaires. Nobody will tell you the PRC is fully socialized, it in fact does have large amounts of Capitalistic production. There is a case to be made, however, that the CPC has maintained a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and oversees a largely Socialized economy.
They are of course no where near lower-stage Communism, but they do appear to be transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism. Critique of the Gotha Programme makes it explicitly clear that social progress cannot outpace Material Reality. Given that the US is intertwined with the PRC, and the emerging multi-polar world is not yet here, the PRC could risk their geopolitical stability by nationalizing faster than they are. This is something the USSR failed to keep under control, which played a part in their collapse.
Overall, “State Capitalist” is wrong, but so is the notion that the PRC has a fully Socialized economy. It is a transitional economy.
The truth is… three tanks and a dude?
… a standard for democracy? Is this still a reference to USA?
Why would it just be for the US? Is Capitalism unique to the US?
No, Im asking what the standard of democracy it’s referring to is.
Economy democracy is vastly important for example, and not only to steer production & development, but also to to keep politics in check.It’s referring to western Liberal Democracies. They all function differently, but serve similar purposes and aims with Capitalism as the status quo.
Yes, that makes sense & made sense to me, but the ‘todays’ part confuses me. Isn’t it just the same exact thing in a bit later stages as far as the consequences go?
Yes, generally. It’s trying to force the viewer to acknowledge present conditions, as a presumptive call to action to reorganize society along collective lines.
Aye, that is good.
But perhaps it’s better to do that without implying that if it “worked” before it might again.It’s good for people to understand how other people have to live, but also that this is the result of such a system working as designed.
But perhaps it’s better to do that without implying that if it “worked” before it might again.
I don’t believe that is the point, here. It’s directly saying that this is the result of Capitalism.
