this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
71 points (71.3% liked)
Memes
56474 readers
552 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The richest country in the world has homelessness, poor infrastructure, malnutrition, terrible education, stagnating wages, etc. Meanwhile China was able to go from an agricultural society to an industrial powerhouse. There are a few lessons to be learned here if we're willing to learn them.
Because of the rich men from the U.S. essentially stealing our jobs and giving them to cheap laborers overseas.
Seems like China's version of socialism won't work without the capitialist hegemony in place. Which makes me wonder 'Is that really socialism?'
E:Clarifying critique. My, a classic projection. Never mind their built up industry.
Yeah I'm not gonna use ChatGPT to summarize essays to prove my point like your .ml heroes. You can look up what happened in Detroit in the 50's and 60's, actually most manufacturing areas have followed the same trajectory. Something like two-thirds of our manufacturing potential has been lost since ww2 — the reason is consistent for every sector. Globalization allowed for cheap labor overseas to arrest manufacturing from capitalist countries. China as it is never could have existed without capitalism.
Some of what you said is true, actually. Previously:
What’s different about China is that, unlike in capitalist states, the capitalists don’t run the state.
It's extremely fucking telling that when shitlibs can't even imagine someone being able to actually make a compelling argument themselves. "I could never do that, so they must have used ChatGPT!"
Go back to reddit
Your points on what happened in the US are fair, and I refined my specific critique. That being said,
Wild take with no evidence. I question whether you're even arguing in good faith.
Elaborate. Do you refer to their policies or the inflow of capital to the country?
Hove you considered the fact that anti-communists such as yourself tend to revolve 5-6 talking points/narratives which means whenever you recycle it many people can simply search the keyword in their own histories and copy paste a reply with minimal edits. If you were more creative you'd definitely see less fast replies.
Very cool but completely irrelevant to the claim that people on ml can respond to your recycled drivel with well sourced comments quickly and thus are all secretly using ai.
You're doing a great job cosplaying one then.
More compelling than "fast replies to recycled drivel means everyone is using ai".
As opposed to your very compelling argument of "your arguments are too good, that's suspicious!"
"you've disagreed with me before, so that means you're wrong!"
Go back to reddit
Chances are this is what you're seeing. Essays and sources made and compiled, kept on hand. I do the same for the latter at minimum.
The industrial base formed by Mao remains completely intact. State-owned Enterprises have always had full or near-full control of all critical industries. Let's not forget the Soviets industrialized without any of those benefits. Moreover, while what happened under Deng Xiaoping sped up development, China was never capitalist nor state capitalist.
Jeff J. Brown, a China analyst, details this further in this excerpt from an interview about his book China Rising: Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations:
China took advantage of the technology gap and capital flooding to build up its industry. Now, it is pivoting to increasing domestic consumption and multilateralism with the global south, energy independence, and cooperative agreements with the rest of the global south. It is not a permanently static system (nothing truly is), but one that adapts as time progresses to new conditions. The China of today is not the China of the 90s.
You're defining socialism as "no billionaires," which means "no private property," which means "no transition at all between capitalism and communism." There's no hypocrisy here, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what constitutes socialism, which is working class control of the state and an economy where public ownership is principal, both of which apply to China.
This fundamentally flawed outlook is why you're saying China isn't truly socialist if they don't immediately declare war on the US Empire and potentially plunge the world into nuclear war, purely to satisfy an online commenter. You see socialism not as a mode of production, but purely violence against capitalists. This is just a worship of adventurism, not a commitment to ending class society through scientific analysis of development and the conquest of political and economic power via revolution, which China completed in 1949.
China arresting a diplomatic delegation would be considered an act of war. China has absolutely nothing to gain by attacking individual Statesian CEOs, and far more to gain by building alternative partnerships that sidestep the US and Europe altogether, if need be, which is what they have been ramping up in the last decade (and why the heat is turning up).
What would China gain from arresting any of these goons, who would immediately be replaced? You're treating them like they believe themselves to be, special individuals that got to the top through merit and cannot be easily replaced, when in reality it's the working classes that built them.
"If China doesn't declare war on the US they're not real socialists".
When they're there as part of a US delegation it absolutely would be did you think this through at all?
Don't even know what you're trying to imply with this.
What "machine?" What thinking am I doing for anyone? If people react to a statement you make in a similar way, why is that not evidence of being a sensible conclusion to your assertion?