Look, I’ll admit I’m not as smart as some of the folks who debate this topic, so for me it comes down to a simple question:
Do the Chinese people own the means of production? Not a government body claiming to represent the people, but the people themselves; do the people own the means of production? Can the factory workers choose how the factory operates?
If no, then what’s the point?
I recommend backing up a bit so that we can frame these questions.
One of the more pointless questions anyone asks is a simple binary of, “is XYZ socialist?” Being real people doing real projects in the context of global capitalism and relentless imperial oppression, there is no such thing aa purely socialist, but many things are projects by socialists to advance socialism. When people learn this, they start to use the term as a shorthand: “my communist organization is socialist”, “the Cuban revolution was socialist”, “China is socialist”. These claims only mean that the project is a socialist one. This is different from saying any of those projects have achieved socialism. None of them have and I have yet to meet a socialist who defends China while saying they have achieved socialism.
So really, this is a question of semantics and language using similar or identical terms with different meanings, and this is one of the reasons why those who read up on the topic have such a dramatically different opinion from those who do not.
So, for example, China has a stated ambition of becoming socialist within the next 30 years or so, setting concrete targets for what that means. And it is still a socialist project created and maintained by socialists.
Regarding owning the means of production, this is a Marxist concept. Marx’s postulate was that the ruling class is that which owns/controls the means of production and that society is then crafted according to the interests of that ruling class. Under feudalism, the ruling class was landlords (own/control land), with the major underclass being peasants, serfs (they work the land). Under capitalism , the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, those who own factories, shops, etc and the major underclass is workers, those who work in the factories and shops. Marx hyoothesized that the proletarians who work in ever-concentrated companies would have the capacity to take the means of production by force and then continue running it themselves.
So why am I giving this crash course in Marxism? Well, because Marx himself described the period in which the working class had seized the means of production from the bourgeoisie not as socialism, but as the dictatorship of the proletariat. A period in which society still functions as capitalist in many ways, as the mode of production has not changed and production itself must be maintained, and the bourgeoisie still exist, but in which the working class has become dominant and can oppress the bourgeoisie. China is firmly in this category, exactly what Marx described as this transitional period of unstated duration, attempting to survive and thrive while under constant pressure from imperialists.
I appreciate this comment immensely. I wasn’t being facetious about my comparative lack of understanding on the topic. This was well-worded and informative, and I’m going to take some time to process this into my understanding. Thank you.
Marxism is not the same as worker cooperatives, or workplace democracy. In fact, with respect to worker cooperatives, Marx and Engels were more against than for with respect to the concept of making them the base of the economy. For Marx, Public Ownership and Central Planning were the way to go. Moreover, what denotes a system as Capitalist vs Socialist is not purity but dominance, ie which is the principle? Is it public ownership and central planning, or private property and free markets? No system is devoid of the other, but to pretend that one isn’t transforming into the other is anti-dialectical.
For the PRC, a hair over 50% of the economy is in the Public Sector, and nearly a tenth in the cooperative. This alone means it is certainly heavily public, but not alone does that mean it is Socialist. Within the public sector are key industries like steel, which the remaining private sector relies on. You cannot divorce the Private Sector from the Public, because it depends on it, and this is what additionally adds credibility to its Socialism as the driving factor.
You ask “what the point” of Socialism is if you aren’t “picking your boss” and whatnot, but the real answer is efficiency and supremacy over Capital. Markets have a natural tendency to centralize, but at the peak of this they stop actually progressing, because the amount of information required to direct production becomes massive. Central Planning alleviates this, and by folding all property into the Public Sector related industries can be better coordinated, all in service of maximizing human happiness and raising the floor as high as possible.
That doesn’t mean democracy isn’t also incredibly important, but it does help show that democracy isn’t the goal, either. Democracy is simply another tool for satisfying the population, and its one employed in the PRC as well.
Hope that helps!
You ask “what the point” of Socialism is if you aren’t “picking your boss” and whatnot, but the real answer is efficiency and supremacy over Capital. Markets have a natural tendency to centralize, but at the peak of this they stop actually progressing, because the amount of information required to direct production becomes massive. Central Planning alleviates this, and by folding all property into the Public Sector related industries can be better coordinated, all in service of maximizing human happiness and raising the floor as high as possible.
You lost me here. I’m afraid this is above my comprehension. I’m not arguing against it, I don’t understand what you’re saying (I assume this is my ignorance not any lack of eloquence on your part).
Regarding the public vs private sector that preceded that section, I want to ask clarifying questions if you’ll allow: to you understand does this pathways towards eventual goal then include plans for further assimilation of key assets of the private sector into the public somehow? Is this possible/necessary or is the presumed reality of the ideology at play that some level of capitalistic private sector is inevitable? If it is within the plan, what does this look like?
Well, for starters, I have an introductory Marxist reading list linked on my profile if you want to take a look, or you can get there from here. No need to do so, just if you want to learn more for your own personal knowledge.
As for your question, an emphatic and wholehearted YES! You nailed it, Marxists believe at lower levels of development markets are faster at developing, but that eventually public ownership and planning becomes more efficient. The PRC does this, it increases state ownership incrementally and graduallly, without risking Capital Flight. It’s a “boiling the frog” approach, and it’s necessary because it keeps the PRC integrated with the world economy and rapidly developing alongside it, as it sees the USSR’s isolation as a key aspect of its downfall.
