Hacker News Reader

Comment by Volpe | Hacker News Reader

Capitalism is part of the progression to communism. You have to have generated capital in order to distribute it. Marx saw communism as a progression from capitalism, not a genesis form of government in and of itself.

China had the unfortunate luck of being left in ruins when it becoming "Communist". Deng rebooted the whole thing, it remains to be seen whether they will continue communism into the future. To call it "capitalism" is a bit rich (no pun), given all major industries are owned by the government (the people).

The 50s they also brought health care to vast majority of the population. The 60s they increased literacy across the country by simplifying the language, and standardising education.

Should we both just keep cherry picking information to paint our own narrative, or admit this isn't a black and white subject?

View on HN

I live in China, it is the most capatalistic country I have lived in. If there is any socialism left, it is quite hidden to me.

It's a bit of a false dichotomy (as I tried to explain earliar).

It isn't capitalism vs communism. Capitalism is a form of economy, communism is form of government. The mix of those, I believe china call it: "Socialism with chinese characteristics".

The fact primary industry and exports are state owned is a big tick for: Communism. That's true, regardless what you see living there.

(People making money and doing business is not anti-communism, it is where the money goes that makes it "communist").

Isn't the famous Deng quote: It doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches the mouse.

Primary exports are not owned by the government, that is mostly private. Primary imports in natural resources domestic oriented businesses might be state owned, as are companies that produce primarily for the domestic market (like SOE JV car manufacturers). All those little factories that produce for export are very private.

The communist party doesn't really follow any tenants of Marxism at all. Most are only concerned with propping up their families and embezzling enough money to send their kids to a nice school abroad that doesn't suck.

> Most are only concerned with propping up their families and embezzling enough money to send their kids to a nice school abroad that doesn't suck.

You've just described "people in power" world wide. It isn't unique to communism, or china.

A huge amount of their economy is state owned[0]

That alone is a tenant of marxism. I'm not particularly interested in "true scotsman" style argument regarding is China 'really communist', as you can easily make the case that the U.S isn't technically a democracy, but it doesn't get us anywhere. It's just an argument of semantics.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State-owned_enterprises...

None of those SOEs export. China's economic success is inspite of the SOEs, not because of them. Private companies subsidize SOE success through higher prices paid to them (with no other option given their monopoly statuses).

China is basically an aristocracy at this point, more so than other countries with corruption. Communist ideology plays little role in politics beyond little red book pissing contests that the left and moderates occasionally get into.

Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order [...] Wikipedia

... I'm not sure how that differs/contradicts/contributes to anything said thus far. Did you have anything to add?

Tell me: how many of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_companies_o...) are privately owned?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com