this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
-9 points (44.2% liked)
Memes
53573 readers
1025 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The PRC has markets, but the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. Even the medium firms are controlled by the golden share system. The PRC's corruption got pretty bad in the 90s and 2000s, but Xi's career has been so successful due to running a strong anti-corruption campaign. The PRC is socialist.
Their large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and central planning is the backbone of their economy. Their economic base is the public sector. This is socialism. State capitalism is when the large firms and key industries are privately owned, but directed by a strong state, like Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Bismark's Germany, and the US post-WWII. As far as corruption, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government. Xi is incredibly popular because of the anti-corruption campaigns successfully removing large amounts of opportunists.
I don't really know what you think socialism is.
How publicly owned differs from privately owned? I assume there are no person who collects the profit, is it correct?
Public ownership is collectivized, private is individual or a group of investors. Private ownership requires profits at a systemic level (if not individually), while public doesn't need to. Does that make sense? With collectivized ownership we can abolish the profit motive, and plan the economy more effectively.
I'm curious how public ownership is managed. Do they also have people in charge, but they can be elected? And what motivates their decisions?
From what I understand, with private ownership there are directors who make decisions based on profit motives. Which doesn’t always align with what consumers want. Which is bad, of course.
Depends on the system, but think of how public services are run, that's an example.
No, they don't. You have no clue what you're talking about, nor how government spending works.
Okay, this is deeply unserious.
Xi being head of state does not mean he owns the economy. This is incredibly silly, it's the same logic that people used when claiming Castro was incredibly wealthy, and just pointing to the GDP of Cuba as proof.
The CPC absolutely looks out for the people of China. From the highly successful poverty eradication campaign, to the consistently and dramatically rising incomes for the working class, to the large infrastructure projects, the CPC is focused on the proletariat.
A study from a western firm that found that Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government because of the dramatic and consistent improvements in their lives is absolutely proof of support for the system. It isn't proof of Xi being a "dictator."
Come on, this is nonsense. Please stick to reality.
No, Putin does not own the economy, just like Trump does not own the US. This is silly. Additionally, Russia is capitalist, and the PRC is socialist.
No, the CPC does not take organs from people off the streets. This is incredibly racist propaganda, and I cannot believe you're repeating this.
I'm not "simping" for anything, I've provided sources for what I've said, while you live in fantasy land where heads of state are owners of economies like we live in feudalism. This is nonsense. Plus, not sure why you're bringing in the DPRK and RF unprompted, we were discussing the PRC.
No, the Falun Gong is an anticommunist cult that regularly makes up shit. You are regurgitating USian propaganda, that's why you're malding.
All states are authoritarian, what matters is which class is in control, the proletariat or bourgeoisie. "Authoritarian" isn't something unique to the PRC, it applies to every state, though the nature of that authority depends on the class structure.