You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-1 points
*

Because China is capitalist, despite being formally led by a communist party. It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one. Socialism, by definition, requires social ownership of means of production, which is not the case in China; the term was appropriated and wrongfully used by US and several other countries to define economies with more state control and/or social policies, but this is simply not what socialism is.

Interestingly, China has entire ghost towns full of homes ready to accept people in - but, as in any capitalist economy, homes are seen as an investment, and state subsidies are low, pricing out the homeless. They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.

This is demonstratably false. China has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, at ~90%. The US is at ~66% for comparison (and most of that isn’t actually full ownership, but a debt to mortgage brokers).

Why do you white supremacists think its okay to spout any unsourced nonsense because it fits your racist biases?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

This link does not disprove the point. Home ownership isn’t the same thing, you can have families that rent, they aren’t homeless either.

Using the same source there is twice as many homeless (relative to population) in china than in spain, for example.

I’m not trying to prove that the number is high in China, I don’t know what’s the average for all countries. However, claiming that there isn’t a lot of homeless because 90% of the non homeless own their house is wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The source for that appears to be this article from 2011 : https://web.archive.org/web/20160930015343/http://gbtimes.com/life/homelessness-china

Most of the poverty alleviation campaigns were well underway by 2012, so I’d be interested to see what those numbers are now.

But also, China is responsible for ~3/4ths of the reduction in world poverty via these campaigns.

Not to mention that if you’ve visited any Chinese city in the past few years, you won’t see any of the slums or homeless that you see in the neoliberal countries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

China is demonstrably not capitalist, and people who keep repeating that it is are utterly clueless. If China was capitalist then it would be developing exactly the same way actual capitalist countries are developing. You will not see any of the following happening in a capitalist country ever

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf

From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4

From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&amp%3Blocations=CN&amp%3Bstart=2008

By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Capitalism is not defined by how the poor are treated, but by the economic relationships and mode of ownership.

Nordic countries have low poverty and generally good social support. Like it or not, this is achieved with private property on means of production, hence they are capitalist.

China has private property on means of production, hence it too is capitalist.

Both of them feature strong state oversight, which allows them to direct more of the capitalist profits to help the poor - which is good! But this doesn’t make them “socialist”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

China is not capitalist, its a mixed economy with the state-owned-and-planned sector dominating the heights of the economy.

Is China state capitalist?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Capitalism is defined by which class holds power in society, and in China it’s demonstrably the working class. The reason the economy works in the interest of the poor is a direct result of that.

All the core economy in China is state owned, and the role of private sector continues to decline https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among

You might want to learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate here.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 9.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.6K

    Posts

  • 49K

    Comments