Can Someone Explain the Current Chinese System?

[B0LSHEVIK]

According to Wiki, China is a communist state. But, how exactly does the system work? Obviously not all the enterprises in China are state owned. And obviously the CP maintains political control. But how is the economic model set up to work practically? I know some firms are part state owned, but how is this decided? Any and all information to fill gaps would be very helpful, inform us!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's capitalism. What more is there to it, really? The number of enterprises that are state-owned are few (70% of GDP from private sector or so, and even many schools are for-profit, and there is no universal health-care even), and even so, they are mandated to operate on conventional capitalist profit-basis. There's a strong state support (subsidies etc) for export-oriented sectors. There's no deciding factor as for state-ownership as such. They are just vestiges of the past that the state has kept because of various reasons, such as strategic influence and control and easy support for the capitalist infrastructure (essentially, it is dirigism).

Of course, China isn't a communist state, the Capitalist Party is communist in name only, and "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a synonym for capitalism mangled as a word-play to justify continued Capitalist Party leadership by claiming a political continuum from the past.

[mrmikhail]

China has abandoned nearly all of the Maoist principles it was founded on, aside from Authoritarianism. It's has basically degenerated even further from the deformed worker's state it was, to the current State Capitalist government. Takayuki has it basically correct, though many of the "private" companies are like those of Russia, only private in name when the government really owns the commanding shares of said companies, but it is still State Capitalism which is every bit as bad as all other forms of capitalism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

though many of the "private" companies are like those of Russia, only private in name when the government really owns the commanding shares of said companies, but it is still State Capitalism which is every bit as bad as all other forms of capitalism.

The actual privately-owned enterprises (by private investors, etc; not state-associated) is remarkably high though (especially considering the amusing idea of it claiming not to be just any capitalist). I don't think it can be thought of as "state-capitalist", even, because the state is not in charge of the functions (like in the Soviet Union for example), instead the state is subservient and acting as a supporter for the capitalist market, rather than controlling and emulating it. I'd say the statement rather goes the other way; i.e. it is state-owned in name only, it operates just like any private profit-based capitalist industry (more-so than in the Soviet Union post 1960's reforms).

[mrmikhail]

The actual privately-owned enterprises (by private investors, etc; not state-associated) is remarkably high though (especially considering the amusing idea of it claiming not to be just any capitalist). I don't think it can be thought of as "state-capitalist", even, because the state is not in charge of the functions (like in the Soviet Union for example), instead the state is subservient and acting as a supporter for the capitalist market, rather than controlling and emulating it. I'd say the statement rather goes the other way; i.e. it is state-owned in name only, it operates just like any private profit-based capitalist industry (more-so than in the Soviet Union post 1960's reforms).

This much is true, I'll give you this. But the Chinese may be attempting the Russian method of allowing full on capitalism, then once a company has became heavily profitable, they nationalise it making it a state industry (or creating a facade of a private industry and controlling behind the scenes). They may just be using the capitalism to further their economic power and thus advance their military power as well, at the expense of their people....

[B0LSHEVIK]

Not to be a dick or anything, but Marx did find it quite useful to achieve capitalism before socialism. Maybe, they're doing the right thing. I've already considered moving to China, though, I'll pass for now!

[tir1944]

China is less "socialist" than Norway,Germany or Finland (or pretty much every European state).There's not even free (or relatively accessible) education or healthcare there!
That says enough...

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Not to be a dick or anything, but Marx did find it quite useful to achieve capitalism before socialism. Maybe, they're doing the right thing. I've already considered moving to China, though, I'll pass for now!

That's another thing that Deng used as an excuse for his devolving reforms.

Even if we accept that form of stageism- there's nothing that excuses the way in which the Chinese state has executed it, from cutting pensions and social safety, privatising the health-care system to letting IMF advisers write most of the economic policy of the last 30 years.

[Ocean Seal]

Not to be a dick or anything, but Marx did find it quite useful to achieve capitalism before socialism. Maybe, they're doing the right thing. I've already considered moving to China, though, I'll pass for now!


That's another thing that Deng used as an excuse for his devolving reforms.

Even if we accept that form of stageism- there's nothing that excuses the way in which the Chinese state has executed it, from cutting pensions and social safety, privatising the health-care system to letting IMF advisers write most of the economic policy of the last 30 years.

Yes, that's particularly right but Dengism has devolved into open alliances with world imperialists, so basically its just reactionary. We need a genuine class revolution.

[Commissar Rykov]

I think the PRC just recently answered your question when they demanded Europe cut workers' rights in order to make profit. True Solidarity and Working Class Fraternity there.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, that's particularly right but Dengism has devolved into open alliances with world imperialists, so basically its just reactionary. We need a genuine class revolution.

I don't remember suggesting anything else; and of course there is need for a genuine revolution (not to mention it begun way before Deng, he was only the final nail in the coffin, so to say; the Mao-Nixon shit of 1971-72, the Third Worlds Theory and whatever, all nonsensical gibberish to justify moronic opportunistic policies).

[sherper]

Good responses hefe, extremely worth reading. just one thing i do however wish to add; some say thatchina has abandoned the communist/sociali:Dst system set forth by Mao. yet many believe Mao neverdid believe in the core ideology of communism, he only "used it" for the grip and authority he was able to gain access to. Mao was not much different to the previous monarchs of china, just alot more cruel. Just from my personal opinion on the matter :D