| |
| ▲ | consumer451 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, that's the marketing material. Once Xi declared himself emperor for life, that marketing material fell apart a bit, didn't it? How is modern China even close to theoretical "communism?" It's certainly not Marxist, right? | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | it follows marxist principles and is building towards communism, which isn't overnight. It's currently in a socialist stage. Also, Xi is closer to the captain of a ship rather than an absolute monarch. He has a lot of power, yes, but that's because the party trusts him, not because he demands it | | |
| ▲ | consumer451 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the age of Mao, wasn't it closer to Marxism? There are more billionaires in China now, then there were back then. By that I mean, the wealth disparity in China is at an all-time high now, is it not? Xi removed the 2-term limit from his own position, and has been doing an excellent job at consolidating his power base, through all means necessary. Disclaimer: I believe that pure "capitalism" and pure "communism" are marketing terms which both lead to authoritarianism, aka the "Horseshoe Theory of politics." To me, the natural end-state, if we survive the extremists is Social Democracy. However, it's boring and everyone appears to find the extremes far more exciting. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China was completely mucked up economically under Mao, especially around the cultural revolution. I went there in 1983 when GDP per capita was like $300 and it was a bit prison camp like. It's changed a lot. | | |
| ▲ | consumer451 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was not there, but I believe that history shows that you are correct. I am not trying to sell Mao at all. If anything, he is a yet another ideological-extremist cautionary tale. (yet again, killed millions of his own people through poorly thought out absolutism) Until Xi, China appeared to be moving in a good direction. |
| |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >In the age of Mao, wasn't it closer to Marxism? Not really, marxism is a way of looking at the world, not an economic system in itself >There are more billionaires in China now, then there were back then They hadn't even built capitalism fully, so it makes sense that there was less capital >By that I mean, the wealth disparity in China is at an all-time high now, is it not? it is, and they're currently working on how to deal with that >Xi keeps remove the 2 term limits from just position, and has been doing an excellent job at consolidating his power base, through all means necessary. Sure, but that's just politics. Ultimately if the majority of the party had a problem with him he wouldn't be in power for long before a coup or a request for him to step down happened |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cyberax 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the biggest joke. It's not. China has literally _thousands_ of years of bureaucratic institutional memory. And it just keeps perpetuating itself. Before the 20-th century, the Chinese officials had to study the classic Chinese literature and pass exams based on that knowledge. These works were completely abstract and literally useless in day-to-day work. And you had to follow all the rituals to demonstrate your allegiance and being-in-the-group. Now they just swapped the Classical Chinese works with Marxist writings. Nobody cares about their content, but you have to know them and you have to follow the rituals. | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I fail to see how both can't be true. It demonstrates your allegiance to the parties main goal (communism) and filters out those who oppose it | | |
|
|
