Is China's economy Fascist or Communist?

[Ahknaton]

China's economy has long ceased to be purely socialist, with limited amounts of free-enterprise permitted and heavy foreign investment, with the major domestic economic players being state-owned corporations. Is China's economy then better described as "fascist", given that it is essentially state-managed or "guided" capitalism?

[OVERWATCH]

Socio-fascist.

[Ixtab]

Socialist, obviously. I proved this beyond peradventure of doubt in another thread.

[Ahknaton]

Socialist, obviously. I proved this beyond peradventure of doubt in another thread.
This one?

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2996

Private industry accounts for more than 30% of China's GDP:

http://english.people.com.cn/200204/07/eng20020407_93626.shtml

[Leif]

Is China's economy then better described as "fascist", given that it is essentially state-managed or "guided" capitalism?

State owned industries =/= fascist.

Fascism was very specific in its rise from Liberal Democracies to crush the gaining momentum of socialist movements. China simply hasn't shared the role of any Fascist movement. They are degenerating socialism, if one wants pin a label on them.

If anyone doubts China has/is moving away from socialism, look at the other thread on this topic:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2996

[Ixtab]

If anyone doubts China has/is moving away from socialism,Only away from your dogmatic orthodox Leninist conception of "Socialism". I hope that China will continue to take this path it is now taking. China cannot be self-sufficient. Good that it has activated market forces in order to adapt to an an increasingly globalised economy.



THE ECONOMY OF NEW DEMOCRACY
By Mao Tse-Tung
If such a republic is to be established in China, it must be new-democratic not only in its politics but also in its economy.
It will own the big banks and the big industrial and commercial enterprises.



Enterprises, such as banks, railways and airlines, whether Chinese-owned or foreign-owned, which are either monopolistic in character or too big for private management, shall be operated and administered by the state, so that private capital cannot dominate the livelihood of the people: this is the main principle of the regulation of capital.


This is another solemn declaration in the Manifesto of the Kuomintang's First National Congress held during the period of Kuomintang-Communist co-operation, and it is the correct policy for the economic structure of the new-democratic republic. In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat, the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not "dominate the livelihood of the people", for China's economy is still very backward.
The republic will take certain necessary steps to confiscate the land of the landlords and distribute it to those peasants having little or no land, carry out Dr. Sun Yat-sen's slogan of "land to the tiller", abolish feudal relations in the rural areas, and turn the land over to the private ownership of the peasants. A rich peasant economy will be allowed in the rural areas. Such is the policy of "equalization of landownership". "Land to the tiller" is the correct slogan for this policy. In general, socialist agriculture will not be established at this stage, though various types of co-operative enterprises developed on the basis of "land to the tiller" will contain elements of socialism.

China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall.

Such are the internal economic relations which a revolutionary China, a China fighting Japanese aggression, must and necessarily will establish.

Such is the economy of New Democracy.

And the politics of New Democracy are the concentrated expression of the economy of New Democracy.

[Leif]

Only away from your dogmatic orthodox Leninist conception of "Socialism".

This has nothing to do with Leninism.

Privatization (Chinese privatization: 600% increase over 11 years, 30% of the Chinese GDP, 20% of industry) is completely anti-socialist of any variety. Private ownership is the exact antithesis of socialism.

[Ixtab]

(Chinese privatization: 600% increase over 11 years, 30% of the Chinese GDP, 20% of industryGood!!!!!

This is obviously what China needs.

[Ixtab]

Private ownership is the exact antithesis of socialism.What about the other 75 percent of China's economy?

[Ahknaton]

What about the other 75 percent of China's economy?
Less than 70% (and falling)

It's not just a matter of the current situation, its the direction of the trend.

[Ixtab]

Chinese policies are simply a continuation of the "New Democracy" line which Mao proclaimed to be the future policy of the People's Republic of China, and so it is.

[Kodos]

Chinese policies are simply a continuation of the "New Democracy" line which Mao proclaimed

Why did Deng Xiaoping have to lead what essentially amounted to a coup against Mao's wife and the rest of the gang of four after he died if this is the case? Deng did not continue Mao's policies.

[Ixtab]

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because Deng was a usurper (false), that he therefore was not continuing ANY of Mao's policies. Mao's description of New Democracy is exactly the same as the situation in China to-day. Emperor_Palpatine, as usual, doesn't know a thing what he's talking about. Criticising exiled former party members of the CCP was the line during the Cultural Revolution and does not apply to the civil disturbances caused by both right and left opportunists.

[Kodos]

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because Deng was a usurper (false), that he therefore was not continuing ANY of Mao's policies. Emperor_Palpatine, as usual, doesn't know a thing what he's talking about.

Mao's wife and the rest of the "gang of four" thought not.

[Ixtab]

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because Deng was a usurper (false), that he therefore was not continuing ANY of Mao's policies. Emperor_Palpatine, as usual, doesn't know a thing what he's talking about.

Mao's wife and the rest of the "gang of four" thought not.
Mao did not have the right to choose a successor anyway.

The Gang of Four were rightly considered counter-revolutionary.

[Kodos]

Mao did not have the right to choose a successor anyway.

Okay but originally you said Deng continued Mao's policies? Do you think Mao would have created special free market zones?

[Ixtab]

Mao did not have the right to choose a successor anyway.

Okay but originally you said Deng continued Mao's policies? Do you think Mao would have created special free market zones?Why don't you stop asking questions, and start advancing actual counter-arguments?

That is all I have to say.

[Kodos]

Why don't you stop asking questions, and start advancing actual counter-arguments?

Due to your irritation ill just declare victory.

[Ixtab]

Why don't you stop asking questions, and start advancing actual counter-arguments?

Due to your irritation ill just declare victory.Due to the vacuousness of your posts I will just declare victory.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Fashist.

Communism did never exist.

[A. Radek]

It's socialist, without any doubt. Bregowald is right on this. The state still is the majority owner of the enterprises. In this it similiar to Lenin's inviting capitalist into the Soviet Union, a policy continued by Stalin. Capitalists aren't determining ownership division, the state is. In any case, it's a fairly corrupt system , so as a practical matter it doesn''t adhere to any ideological lines, except in rhetoric only, like the U.S., and run on the whims of it's ruling class. The myth here is that slavery is incompatable with 'capitalism', which clearly isn't true.

[Leif]

Chinese policies are simply a continuation of the "New Democracy" line which Mao proclaimed to be the future policy of the People's Republic of China, and so it is.

From the "New Democracy" statement, Mao supports economic regulation. He never out-right supports private enterprise, but acknowledges it exists. Even if Mao supported privatization, which there is no evidence for, that does not make privatization "socialist" as the two are fundamental opposites.

It's socialist, without any doubt. Bregowald is right on this. The state still is the majority owner of the enterprises.

Having state-run industries does not equal socialism. And even if it did, China has been rapidly moving away from this. China, if socialist, is on the opposite path.

As Bregowald said, Bismarck's Germany had state-regulated industry, but to call it socialist is absurd.

[Anima Eternae]

I side with Mr. Yi. China's economy is probably more capitalistic than the USA. But this is proof the axiom that "free markets breed free ideas" is false.

[Ixtab]

Having state-run industries does not equal socialism.Leif never turns this logic around. There are plenty of capitalist states with more state ownership than China has private enterprise.

[Ahknaton]

Leif never turns this logic around. There are plenty of capitalist states with more state ownership than China has private enterprise.
These "capitalist" states can legitimately be called (partly) socialist in nature. An example would be New Zealand in the 70s-80s under the SOE (State Owned Enterprise) model.

[Ixtab]

These "capitalist" states can legitimately be called (partly) socialist in nature.The question is not how much of the economy is owned in a private or a collective manner as it is, Which class has its interests reflected in the dominant class relations?

It is perfectly possible, for instance, for there to exist collective, and not private, ownership of the means of production -- not by the working class, however, but by the capitalists as a class. In such a situation the STATE is to be called 'capitalist'. New Zealand in the 1970s is a perfect example of this -- state ownership of the means of production by the capitalists as a class. This is not Socialism in any way, shape, nor form.

[Conservative Canuck]

I think that some concessions to the market and private property were allowed to gain access to foreign technology. Hard currency was also a priority for China in the 1970s and the attempts to obtain these resulted in more concessions than would have been acceptable for a communist country. Perhaps the Chinese case would only prove us that communism is impossible in a backward country, at least when it is isolated from the world economy.

[Leif]

Which class has its interests reflected in the dominant class relations?

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200007/12/eng20000712_45330.html

China's Income Disparity Grows:
According to a survey by the State Statistics Bureau, less than five percent of China's wealthiest hold nearly a half of the country's savings deposits worth more than 6 trillion yuan.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/chin-j31.shtml

Unemployment:
In rural China, the deregulation of agricultural prices and production has forced tens of millions off the land since the mid-1980s. In the largest internal migration in human history, an estimated 150 million rural Chinese have flooded into urban areas in a desperate search for work—at any wages.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/chin-j15.shtml

A growing number of millionaires:
In glaring contrast to the poverty of the masses, Chinese sources cited by the May 31 edition of the Economist estimate that there are now 1,000 Chinese “billionaires”, individuals with personal wealth of more than one billion yuan or $US120 million. There are also three million “millionaires” with assets worth over $120,000. China's richest man, banker and so-called “red capitalist” Rong Yiren, holds a fortune of $1.9 billion.


So, whose class interests are dominating China?

[Ixtab]

The working class, unquestionably (higher standard of living and improving yearly).

(WSWS is not a source, LOL)

[Leif]

The working class, unquestionably (higher standard of living and improving yearly).

Living standards increased with the growth of capitalism as well.

(WSWS is not a source, LOL)

Can you find fault with their figures? What about the State Statistics Bureau?


EDIT: ROFL, I see that you've resorted to giving bad rep instead of arguments.