Julan Du and Chenggang Xu analyzed the Chinese model in a 2005 paper to assess whether it represents a type of market socialism or capitalism. They concluded that China’s contemporary economic system represents a form of capitalism rather than market socialism because: (1) financial markets exist which permit private share ownership—a feature absent in the economic literature on market socialism; and (2) state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme, which are central features in most models of market socialism. Du and Xu concluded that China is not a market socialist economy, but an unstable form of capitalism.
I’m calling your tokenizing logic racist. The lack is thought you put into the entire endeavor. I cannot imagine being this lazy, incurious, and racist. Sort yourself out.
No, you are arrogant and this leads you to false confidence that you can correct people who know more than you by hastily googling, “studies that say China is capitalist” and quoting the first result, patting yourself on the back, and thinking, “you did well, kid”.
That’s a very liberal understanding of socialism, and explicitly rejects the fact that China is in the beginning stages of socialism, not claiming it’s a higher stage. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, while the medium and small firms are cooperatively owned, privately owned, or joint-stock. Cheng Enfu made a model to make it easier to understand:
China was a largely feudal county working its way out of brutal colonial exploitation - for which the exploiters have never paid reparations and still held on to Hong Kong for decades.
How long does it take to build productive forces and modernize while still subject to unequal exchange and general imperialism? That is a social and political question, so you tell me about where China was and what its path has been. How many other imoerialized countries jave eliminated absolute poverty, by the way? Not just taking decades to do it, but accomplish it at all.
They went from a colonized agrarian country emerging from a civil war to arguably the most developed country on the planet in only 76 years. That’s incredibly rapid progress. Britain has been capitalist for centuries and has been the world hegemonic empire for a good portion of that time, and yet is less developed. If your point is that going from an agrarian economy to where China is today in less than a century is slow growth, then I’d love to hear what passes your impossibly high standards.
There’s four stages, they’ve been in the first for seventy-six years.
Doing the math it seems they’ll need another two hundred and twenty-six years to reach the final stage if they got to the second stage tomorrow.
I’m not sure if I have impossibly high standards or thinking it’s reasonable to wait another nearly quarter of a millennium might be incredibly low standards.
Why on Earth would you imagine each stage lasts a specific number of years? Why on Earth do you think thr timer should only start at the founding of the PRC? Why on Earth are you framing it as every stage up until communism is a sacrifice as compared to capitalism, and not as a system gradually and rapidly improving further and further?
This is incredibly incoherent on your part, and thoroughly liberal.
Because people doing work need to pay bills and make a living? You also seem to be confused about what capitalism is. A worker selling their own labour is not capitalism. Capitalism is when you use capital to buy up the means of production and then hire workers to work for you and appropriate the value they produce.
lmfao China does not embrace capitalism even in the slightest, meanwhile Russia’s public sector is almost as big as China’s
Source.
“Two Chinese said it. What, that isn’t enough for you tankies!?”
You’re accusing me of being racist because the source I quoted is written by someone in London and Hong Kong?
I’m calling your tokenizing logic racist. The lack is thought you put into the entire endeavor. I cannot imagine being this lazy, incurious, and racist. Sort yourself out.
I’m well sorted and well adjusted thank you very much for your concern though.
No, you are arrogant and this leads you to false confidence that you can correct people who know more than you by hastily googling, “studies that say China is capitalist” and quoting the first result, patting yourself on the back, and thinking, “you did well, kid”.
Get your racist shit out of here.
I’m unsure why you think you know me well enough to know what I know or don’t know.
You think I can’t read your comments or something? This is a habit of yours.
Blah blah blah [points to China] “is this Ronald Reagan? “
Cite whatever paper you like this is dumbest take possible…
That’s a very liberal understanding of socialism, and explicitly rejects the fact that China is in the beginning stages of socialism, not claiming it’s a higher stage. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, while the medium and small firms are cooperatively owned, privately owned, or joint-stock. Cheng Enfu made a model to make it easier to understand:
The CCP got into power seventy-six years ago how long does it take to get into the next stage?
China was a largely feudal county working its way out of brutal colonial exploitation - for which the exploiters have never paid reparations and still held on to Hong Kong for decades.
How long does it take to build productive forces and modernize while still subject to unequal exchange and general imperialism? That is a social and political question, so you tell me about where China was and what its path has been. How many other imoerialized countries jave eliminated absolute poverty, by the way? Not just taking decades to do it, but accomplish it at all.
It’s gradually increasing, it doesn’t work in spurts or hard lines. There isn’t a “go to next stage” button on Xi’s desk.
Makes sense but seventy-six years is a really long time.
They went from a colonized agrarian country emerging from a civil war to arguably the most developed country on the planet in only 76 years. That’s incredibly rapid progress. Britain has been capitalist for centuries and has been the world hegemonic empire for a good portion of that time, and yet is less developed. If your point is that going from an agrarian economy to where China is today in less than a century is slow growth, then I’d love to hear what passes your impossibly high standards.
There’s four stages, they’ve been in the first for seventy-six years.
Doing the math it seems they’ll need another two hundred and twenty-six years to reach the final stage if they got to the second stage tomorrow.
I’m not sure if I have impossibly high standards or thinking it’s reasonable to wait another nearly quarter of a millennium might be incredibly low standards.
Why on Earth would you imagine each stage lasts a specific number of years? Why on Earth do you think thr timer should only start at the founding of the PRC? Why on Earth are you framing it as every stage up until communism is a sacrifice as compared to capitalism, and not as a system gradually and rapidly improving further and further?
This is incredibly incoherent on your part, and thoroughly liberal.
Great, plenty of other economists have concluded the opposite. Here are a few books you can read to educate yourself.
Something about paying $147 to a capitalist to read book about socialism seems strange.
Why?
Imagine living in year 2025 and not being able to figure out how to find a PDF online. Explains why you’re such an ignoramus I guess.
Why not share the pdf’s and remove a barrier?
Because people doing work need to pay bills and make a living? You also seem to be confused about what capitalism is. A worker selling their own labour is not capitalism. Capitalism is when you use capital to buy up the means of production and then hire workers to work for you and appropriate the value they produce.
why not read the book for you as well as a bedtime story?
I could use the company and sometimes I get bogged down with big words.
Wow you have some bad excuses…