Allero , (edited )

You're right on classics - but off topic.

I'm saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn't feasible at the moment.

I'm combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it's a capitalist state with social elements.

A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn't do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.

A return in form of cash or lease.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • youshouldknow@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines