The PRC has a socialist market economy, a form of developing socialism where the commanding heights and critical industries are socially owned, while emerging industries are marketized. This is because the CPC understands the Marxist critique of capitalism, which isn’t that private property is morally wrong, but that the basis of social ownership is centralized, socialized production as seen in developed markets, not decentralized and scattered production, which instead suits markets.
The CPC already tried the more dogmatic method of collectivizing everything, and this went the way Marxists would predict: unstable. The developing areas were in contradiction between their unsuitable level of productive forces, and an attempt at forcing a higher level of social organization upon them. This resulted in dogmatic errors that have since been corrected.
Regarding the CPC, they are a proletarian party. The state in Marxist analysis can never be a neutral “state,” it can only be a “feudal state,” a “capitalist state,” a “socialist state.” They can only represent the ruling class of society, as determined by which class controls the economic base. The proletariat and peasantry took power in 1949, and since then have had dominating control over the base and superstructure. Hierarchy is not class, that is not Marxist. The capitalists that exist in China are under the domination of the state, they are not in power.
As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government. This is such a non-sequitor that I had to find a point somewhere, so that’s the best point I could make out of your logic. I already responded directly to the lies you made, feel free to go back and reread my comment.
I don’t know what your goal is here. If your goal was to delegitimize me, then surely you’d actually respond to the points I brought up and source something, as it stands you’re just legitimizing me.
Regurgitating the same disinformation as last time isn’t the same thing as making a point.
As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government.
I never mentioned affirmative action, that’s something you brought up. We were talking about minority representation in legislature. Do you think affirmative action is required for minorities to become representatives? Because if so, that’s pretty demeaning as it suggests you believe they can’t get elected on their own merit.
And I didn’t say minority representation “in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government.” I said that arguing that China doesn’t have a racial hierarchy on the grounds that minorities have representation is the same thing as claiming America isn’t racist because it has black members of congress.
You have to completely misconstrue my point to arrive at the interpretation you took away, which tells me you’re being disingenuous. Hence I’m not putting a full-throttled effort into my responses to you.
If your goal was to delegitimize me,
No, I don’t have to make that my goal because you already delegitimize yourself with basically every comment you make. The only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview.
then surely you’d actually respond to the points I brought up and source something
I referenced numerous works that provide definitive accounts of anti-discrimination laws, legal protections, and administrative power and representation. You deflected, said I was wrong, and refused to engage with any of it, hand waving it as “disinformation” despite largely being sourced from places like the New York Times. You have no actual legs to stand on, and justify your own lack of developed argumentation and lack of evidence as “not taking the bait.” Anyone can see that the only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview, refusing to look at hard evidence and shutting your eyes and ears to uncomfortable facts.
Yeah none of your links were to the NYT, so that’s just a blatant lie. Most of your links were to fringy ML sites, and the rest were only tangentially relevant to the discussion at best.
I’ll admit though, you seem to be getting better at deflection and obfuscation. A cursory glance alone might make it appear that I’m the one here being dense.
It wasn’t a lie, the site links many western news sites as sources for claims. If you actually took a few minutes to engage beyond checking the links, you would have known that. No deflection or obfuscation on my part, just disappointment that you won’t even do the due diligence to refute any points. You are indeed the one being dense, sorry to say. This is kind of like that time when you were insistent that the proper term is “Marxist-Leninism” rather than “Marxism-Leninism”, which Wikipedia easily verifies.
China is socialist, I already explained how and why to you a couple of days ago, which I will repost here so you can read it again:
As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government. This is such a non-sequitor that I had to find a point somewhere, so that’s the best point I could make out of your logic. I already responded directly to the lies you made, feel free to go back and reread my comment.
I don’t know what your goal is here. If your goal was to delegitimize me, then surely you’d actually respond to the points I brought up and source something, as it stands you’re just legitimizing me.
Regurgitating the same disinformation as last time isn’t the same thing as making a point.
I never mentioned affirmative action, that’s something you brought up. We were talking about minority representation in legislature. Do you think affirmative action is required for minorities to become representatives? Because if so, that’s pretty demeaning as it suggests you believe they can’t get elected on their own merit.
And I didn’t say minority representation “in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government.” I said that arguing that China doesn’t have a racial hierarchy on the grounds that minorities have representation is the same thing as claiming America isn’t racist because it has black members of congress.
You have to completely misconstrue my point to arrive at the interpretation you took away, which tells me you’re being disingenuous. Hence I’m not putting a full-throttled effort into my responses to you.
No, I don’t have to make that my goal because you already delegitimize yourself with basically every comment you make. The only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview.
Nah, that’s just called “not taking the bait”
I referenced numerous works that provide definitive accounts of anti-discrimination laws, legal protections, and administrative power and representation. You deflected, said I was wrong, and refused to engage with any of it, hand waving it as “disinformation” despite largely being sourced from places like the New York Times. You have no actual legs to stand on, and justify your own lack of developed argumentation and lack of evidence as “not taking the bait.” Anyone can see that the only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview, refusing to look at hard evidence and shutting your eyes and ears to uncomfortable facts.
Yeah none of your links were to the NYT, so that’s just a blatant lie. Most of your links were to fringy ML sites, and the rest were only tangentially relevant to the discussion at best.
I’ll admit though, you seem to be getting better at deflection and obfuscation. A cursory glance alone might make it appear that I’m the one here being dense.
It wasn’t a lie, the site links many western news sites as sources for claims. If you actually took a few minutes to engage beyond checking the links, you would have known that. No deflection or obfuscation on my part, just disappointment that you won’t even do the due diligence to refute any points. You are indeed the one being dense, sorry to say. This is kind of like that time when you were insistent that the proper term is “Marxist-Leninism” rather than “Marxism-Leninism”, which Wikipedia easily verifies.