I think the title is indicating the opposite? Guards want to kill ‘fake’ Marxists, so they kill anyone who point out China isn’t socialist? It’s convoluted either way.
China is Socialist, the only subsection of Marxists who believe it isn’t are Gonzaloists, Trots, and Maoists, generally, all fringe minorities among the broader Marxist current worldwide. The PRC’s economy is dominated by Public Property and Central Planning, the fact that it has a Private Sector does not alone mean it isn’t Socialist, to the contrary it’s dependence on the Public Sector as the dominant and driving sector of the economy means it is Socialist.
Sort of! Marxism sees systems through the lens of Dialectical Materialism, the Dialectical aspect acknowledges that close to no system can be seen as “pure.” For example, by the time Capitalism was sprouting from Feudalism, Marx considered many countries that still had feudal modes of production over the majority of their economy to be Capitalist. Not a mixed economy, but Capitalist. The Marxist notion for what a system is, is determined by which Mode of Production is dominant, and which way it is moving towards. To imagine Socialism as a “pure” phase in development is to treat it as “special,” unique from the rest of history, which is a Utopian error.
Looking at the PRC, not only is the largest economic sector the Public Sector, but the PRC expresses strong central planning over even the Private and Cooperative sectors. Capital in the Private Sector increases in State control with the degree to which it has developed, which is very much in line with Marx and Engels. From Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
Marx and Engels saw everything as a process. The revolution is still necessary to wrest absolute control from the Bourgeoisie, an act that can be seen as rather short-term, but the process of building towards Communism through Socialism is one done through degree, not decree. You cannot “will” developed markets that have centralized and made themselves ripe for central planning into existence, and Markets are a useful tool for doing so when combined with clear direction.
Again, from Marx, this time Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Does this all make sense with you? Do you agree, or disagree?
Why do you say China is becoming “more Capitalist and less Socialist?” The PRC is gradually increasing control of the Private Sector as it develops and folds it into the Public Sector. That could have been true in the 90s, but we are almost in 2025 and have seen decades of the opposite of what you describe.
Source for increasing control of the private sector? Is there a study of share of gdp public vs private or something? Because I’m seeing the opposite trend.
This doesn’t even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.
Private “ownership” is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.
The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.
I’m always confused at this, to me, Socialism is something that can only exist within Capitalism. Socialism without Capitalism is just Communism, as far as I understand it.
You saying they are or aren’t?
Guards want to kill Marxists, so they say “China is socialist” and kill the ones who laugh and point out how it isn’t
I think the title is indicating the opposite? Guards want to kill ‘fake’ Marxists, so they kill anyone who point out China isn’t socialist? It’s convoluted either way.
I think you’re right, but I’ve always seen the meme used as I described so maybe OP didn’t understood their own meme? Idk anymore, only doubt is left
Doesn’t matter. It’s just bait to draw out a response. A memeception.
China is Socialist, the only subsection of Marxists who believe it isn’t are Gonzaloists, Trots, and Maoists, generally, all fringe minorities among the broader Marxist current worldwide. The PRC’s economy is dominated by Public Property and Central Planning, the fact that it has a Private Sector does not alone mean it isn’t Socialist, to the contrary it’s dependence on the Public Sector as the dominant and driving sector of the economy means it is Socialist.
So you think China can be capitalist and socialist at the same time? Does the state own the means of production, or do private individuals?
Sort of! Marxism sees systems through the lens of Dialectical Materialism, the Dialectical aspect acknowledges that close to no system can be seen as “pure.” For example, by the time Capitalism was sprouting from Feudalism, Marx considered many countries that still had feudal modes of production over the majority of their economy to be Capitalist. Not a mixed economy, but Capitalist. The Marxist notion for what a system is, is determined by which Mode of Production is dominant, and which way it is moving towards. To imagine Socialism as a “pure” phase in development is to treat it as “special,” unique from the rest of history, which is a Utopian error.
Looking at the PRC, not only is the largest economic sector the Public Sector, but the PRC expresses strong central planning over even the Private and Cooperative sectors. Capital in the Private Sector increases in State control with the degree to which it has developed, which is very much in line with Marx and Engels. From Principles of Communism:
Marx and Engels saw everything as a process. The revolution is still necessary to wrest absolute control from the Bourgeoisie, an act that can be seen as rather short-term, but the process of building towards Communism through Socialism is one done through degree, not decree. You cannot “will” developed markets that have centralized and made themselves ripe for central planning into existence, and Markets are a useful tool for doing so when combined with clear direction.
Again, from Marx, this time Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Does this all make sense with you? Do you agree, or disagree?
China is becoming more capitalist and less socialist over time, that undermines the argument that capitalism is transitional on the way to socialism.
Why do you say China is becoming “more Capitalist and less Socialist?” The PRC is gradually increasing control of the Private Sector as it develops and folds it into the Public Sector. That could have been true in the 90s, but we are almost in 2025 and have seen decades of the opposite of what you describe.
Source for increasing control of the private sector? Is there a study of share of gdp public vs private or something? Because I’m seeing the opposite trend.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china
https://www.statista.com/chart/25194/private-sector-contribution-to-economy-in-china/
You’re confusing wealth with percentage of production. The Private Sector is profit driven, which naturally trends towards more wealth production. Regardless, here is data going over the trends in production in the PRC and why it is Socialist, rather than Capitalist.
Private individuals own it, but the state can change the specific private individual at will.
That’s no different than any country. Anywhere can charge someone and strip their assets.
This doesn’t even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.
Private “ownership” is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.
The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.
I’m always confused at this, to me, Socialism is something that can only exist within Capitalism. Socialism without Capitalism is just Communism, as far as I understand it.