Opinion of people who refer to China as Communist

[Redalgo]

lol gets my vote - the only instances of communism coming close to implementation in the world I know of predate the founding of the People's Republic of China.

[Redalgo]

I love when western lefties argue that certain places are not communist.  It's like people saying Obama isn't black or that LBJ wasn't a dick.  Do they call themselves communist?  Is the state "all powerful"?  Does the state own or control all the important industry?  Is the local chapter of the Communist Party the only "party" and it runs the country?  

Just because you can't check off every box doesn't mean Sean Connery isn't a true Scotsman.

Communism is a variety of anarchy under which property is owned in common, there is no money, and production is directed toward satisfying the needs of all members of society. The overarching aim is to liberate everyone from economic subjugation, thereby empowering them to do as they please in life. Marx reckoned machines could do the sh**tty jobs nobody wants while human beings could voluntarily do the jobs they love, under an assumption that people who do not produce and contribute anything meaningful to society will become unhappy. Communists themselves are often socialists in practice today who in theory want communism to be achieved later on.

During the Cold War what we saw was Second World countries implementing socialism in a violently authoritarian or totalitarian (rather than a peaceful, democratic) fashion, usually in keeping with some spin-off on Lenin's views of how best to transition from capitalism to communism. A centrally-planned economy is socialist, not communist, in character really and communism itself cannot exist while the state does - in much the same way that anarcho-capitalism cannot truly exist until the people in power dissolve the state.

More simply put, China's leaders call themselves communist but are overseeing an economy in which the government and firms often collaborate to advance national interests while neither being entirely capitalist nor socialist. They clearly have a mixed economy, and I am tempted to describe it as corporatist - sort of like how a fascist economy works or like that of the U.S. during World War II. Those among Chinese leaders who are not corrupt would probably describe their economy as socialist, however, but much like how Americans describe their own economy as capitalist it is not without its influences from alternative ways of thought. I hope that helps?

[Redalgo]

Now, back to this "income equality" thing.  Do brain surgeons get paid the same as clowns?  Is there cost of living adjustments or would rent not be more expensive in places people want to live?  What if one guy is a lot better at digging ditches than another, there is no way to compensate him a little more for giving that much more to the state?

and Redalgo seems to disagree.

The problem is not that income inequality exists. The notion of equity is a very popular component of socialism, with workers paid in accordance to the perceived social utility of their contributions to society. Personally, I would leave that mostly up to market forces with some limitations in the form of compensation controls, but there is more than one way to go about it. The People's Republic of China has enormous amounts of income inequality though - as in, similar to that found in the United States - which calls into doubt whether Chinese leaders are still committed to socialism. It kind of takes us around full circle to what I said about a mixed economy and corporatism before, in that they are really now focused on their nation's economic expansion, development, and standing in the world instead of hoisting their hundreds upon millions of poor out of poverty while curbing the excesses of their most affluent.

It simply slipped my mind the first time I replied, and it is good that Antonio brought it up.

Now see, that's what "true leftist's" called "pure" communism when I was younger and hung out with such people.  Are there still people alive that think that would work in the real world with real humans?

Nothing about income equality.  Perhaps you guys should all get on the same page before you start making fun of people that call the PRC Communist.

Communism is a term people have reinvented to an extent just as grossly inappropriate as they have for liberal, socialist, fascist, tyranny, totalitarian, and so on. But yeah, there are still quite a few people out there who think it would work. I'm on the fence about it, not really wanting socialism to be a transitional phase to any sort of attempt at communism. It seems about as realistic to me as anarcho-capitalism, which is to say it could be done but is probably not a plausible option given the inadequacies of modern society's prevailing attitudes and values concerning resource distribution, the accountability of leaders, out-groups, and so on.

Anyway, it does not matter if Antonio and I criticize the description from different fronts. It has nothing to do with whether we are each raising thoughts worthy of consideration.

Along those same lines, Beet's analysis is quite agreeable to me as well for the most part, if by "communist state" he is referring to a government seeking to establish communism. That fits what I said before because Maoism is a variation on Stalinism, which in turn is one on Leninism, and this entire family of ideologies thinks of the state as a tool for temporary use in pushing the country though socialism, preparing it for communism, and then "withering" away for anarchy. If anything he and I might disagree a little bit on how to describe capitalism and compare it to other economic systems. There is nothing wrong with that, and it does not invalidate what we are saying on an individual basis about the character of the Chinese economy.

The fact that leftists disagree about these things at least on minute details is not something to be surprised about. Those of us who have dogmatic ideologies are bound to disagree from time to time, and those of us who don't have developed our views independently enough that we are probably not going to fully agree on complex issues with anybody ever. Please realize that being on the "left" merely implies desire for a new social order. Socialists for example are not monolithic in their ways of thought, nor are their opponents for that matter - with capitalist economists having diverse views on a great many issues as well, no?

Edit: For the record though, I never accused anyone here of being an idiot - just perhaps a bit ignorant concerning how to properly use poli sci jargon. At times I misuse certain words or warp them into meaning something new, just the same. Symbols get complicated like that, and yes, to some extent I am ignorant too. It is part of the human condition.