You're viewing part of a thread.
You said:
China is capitalist... It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one.
The response was a well-souced refutation of the idea that the Chinese economy is developing like a capitalist economy. You replied with Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that you're not looking at this in a whole lot of detail and you might have some things to learn.
For instance, you say Nordic countries have low rates of poverty and good social supports despite private ownership of the means of production. But in reality a lot of that is due to sovereign wealth funds, like Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, which is owned by the government and managed by a state-owned bank.
This is all true - state intervention and state-owned businesses and funds bring about a positive change for the majority, and they should be there, but seriously calling those economies socialist would be missing the definitional mark, which is what I have highlighted.
I do believe that moving entire economy under public control would be beneficial, and that, actually, will be what can be called "socialism". Virtually no country, except for heavily sanctioned and blatantly tyrannical North Korea, is currently there.
What we have right now, with heavy state intervention, is certainly better than "free" market economy though, and it reflects in quality of life for the economically disadvantaged - this very intervention leads to these economies following a different path compared to traditional capitalist societies. I do not argue there is no difference between China and, say, US in that regard - the difference is big, it's just not what it takes to call the economy socialist.
The point about Norway wasn't that it's socialist (it's not). The point was that Norway's low rate of poverty and generous social supports come directly from parts of the economy that are publicly owned.
The notion that a country's entire economy must be under public control otherwise it's not Real Socialism is too idealistic. China in 1949 was a late-feudal/pre-industrial country that had just been through a century of colonial invasions and civil wars. It needed to attract capital and expertise in pretty much every field, and it needed to build an effective, modern administrative state. How was it supposed to do all of that at once, wholly through the government? The Soviets ran into the same problem and the result was the New Economic Policy, which, like China today, involved markets and some private ownership, but ultimately subjected both to real state control. You need a transitory period to go from pre-revolutionary society to whatever your vision of Real Socialism is.
For me, China is socialist because the state is ran to the benefit of the working class (see massive poverty alleviation), that state really does control the capitalist class, and China seems to be doing more of both as time goes on.
There are historical examples of completely and actually socialist countries, so it's not some impossible idealistic notion for me.
The transitory period of New Economic Policy lasted only a few years in USSR, and China under Mao was much closer to actual socialism than later under Deng Xiaoping.
And the trend of expanding government control over the economy only comes alive in the 2020's, roughly since the COVID-19 outbreak (just a milestone, not saying they are related). Previously, the trend was strongly on privatization of industries, with the share of state-owned enterprises falling from 80% to 30% in the previous decade, and it's too early to make any conclusions.
There are historical examples of completely and actually socialist countries
Such as?
The aforementioned USSR, for example.