Yes I know China is also technically capitalist but you understand the idea
You must log in or register to comment.
China is as communist as the vatican is good for kids
But sure let us be blinded by propaganda and ignore that the trains in china are held together by ducktape, rails are unsafe and got build with slave labor :)
China is a Socialist country run by a Communist party, which is why the overwhelming majority of major Communist orgs recognize it as such. The economy is dominated by the public sector, which controls the large majority of key industries and large firms. They aren’t fully developed post-scarcity Communist yet, but they are developing through Socialism.
Further, Chinese infrastructure is good. The rails are safe and the trains aren’t held together with duct tape, and they aren’t made with slave labor. This is just chauvanism.
For some reason, people still act like capitalism and socialism (or communism) are mutually exclusive, that an economy must be one or the other. But if you look at essentially every national economy on the planet today, they are all some mix of the socialist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by the government, or a group of workers, or a community) and the capitalist mode of production (when the means of production are owned by a private individual or group of investors, operating for a profit). Almost no economy is exclusively one or the other.
It is true that in most countries with robust high speed rail, there is significant government involvement, like planning and building infrastructure, subsidies, or just providing rail travel as a public service. I definitely think that for a national rail service network to work, you need to do some planning. Here in the US, government and planning are bad words, but clearly they needn’t be.
Social programs are not Socialism. The government doing stuff is not Socialism. You cannot take aspects of a society out of their context and analyze them discretely. The United States does not have a “Socialist” millitary. Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, ie large firms and key industries being firmly public, as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is the principle aspect.
Socialism is a mode of production determined by public ownership
That’s what I’m talking about. Essentially every national economy on the planet includes at least some socialist production. I can’t think of a single national economy on the Earth where the production of all goods and services is carried out exclusively by privately owned, for-profit firms. Can you?
Public Ownership is not Socialism itself, but a component of a Socialist economy. An economy where public ownership controls the large firms and key industries, ie has genuine political control, is Socialist.
No system is purely public or private, hence the line of demarcation between Socialist countries and Capitalist countries is where political power is vested.
No system is purely public or private
I know, that’s what I’ve been saying. That’s my whole point.
You’re conflating public ownership in general with Socialism, though, which is wrong, and leads to wrong conclusions like thinking the US Postal Service is a “socialist part of a Capitalist economy.” All systems are mixed, what determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is which aspect is primary in the economy.
right right… which part of China is communist again? is it the permanent oligarchy? the reeducation camps? the low-paying factory jobs that make the owner class rich?
China’s nationwide passenger rail network doesn’t really care if you have a valid point or not.
Yes, comrade, we have the best trains. They are most efficient for getting workers to the labor camps. We must work hard to build the glorious future for
dear leaderour people!
