Fatal Delusions of Western Man

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

That’s what the communist party calls it, which gives a hint to the intention of its implementation. But a leader making himself de facto dictator also lends to its socialist implementation. Basic subsistence isn’t worth living under totalitarianism.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

a reply to: intrptr

How wrong you are about that last sentence regarding China.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That’s what the communist party calls it, which gives a hint to the intention of its implementation.

What they call it does not necessarily indicate intent. Actually, it's quite silly to state such a thing.

But a leader making himself de facto dictator also lends to its socialist implementation.

How so? Socialism is an economic theory. The system of government it works within and the rules set forth by it's system of government are not indicative of socialism itself.

Basic subsistence isn’t worth living under totalitarianism.

Sure. But they are doing quite well in China.

Is that because of their capitalist approach or their communism?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That’s what the communist party calls it, which gives a hint to the intention of its implementation.

What they call it does not necessarily indicate intent. Actually, it's quite silly to state such a thing.

But a leader making himself de facto dictator also lends to its socialist implementation.

How so? Socialism is an economic theory. The system of government it works within and the rules set forth by it's system of government are not indicative of socialism itself.

Basic subsistence isn’t worth living under totalitarianism.

Sure. But they are doing quite well in China.

Is that because of their capitalist approach or their communism?

They intend their current system to be a precursor to socialism. I’m not sure how pointing that out is silly.

The state is doing well. The state owns all the property and controls the means of production and redistribution.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They intend their current system to be a precursor to socialism. I’m not sure how pointing that out is silly.

Ok. I stand by what I said. What they call it is not indicative of what it actually is.

Also, you state their intent is for it to be a precursor to socialism. That means it is not socialist yet and definitely not communism.

The state is doing well. The state owns all the property and controls the means of production and redistribution.

That is incorrect. The state does not own all property and means of production, etc. Private industry thrives in China. Also, it's important to note that the government does not necessarily own the companies. The government owns shares in the companies and it appears they are, for the most part, banks and oil companies.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I do not care what you "buy". China is not the communist hell hole people seem to believe. In fact, they are poised to surpass us in not only technology, but also in space endeavors.

The things they have done with their space program is amazing.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I do not care what you "buy". China is not the communist hell hole people seem to believe. In fact, they are poised to surpass us in not only technology, but also in space endeavors.

The things they have done with their space program is amazing.

Nor do I care about your idyllic painting of China. Yes on technology and space. More than three times the population?

That's a serious cross to bear, financially. Net importers of food and oil adds to the population burden. So does their over leveraged economy. Based on a 15% per anum growth rate! Financial insanity.

A serious player? Of course. Their house of cards is in no better shape than ours financially, however.

Seems the 'western mentality' is supposed to accept the U.S. is done! "Reports of my demise are premature."

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I do not care what you "buy". China is not the communist hell hole people seem to believe. In fact, they are poised to surpass us in not only technology, but also in space endeavors.

The things they have done with their space program is amazing.

Nor do I care about your idyllic painting of China. Yes on technology and space. More than three times the population?

That's a serious cross to bear, financially. Net importers of food and oil adds to the population burden. So does their over leveraged economy. Based on a 15% per anum growth rate! Financial insanity.

A serious player? Of course. Their house of cards is in no better shape than ours financially, however.

Seems the 'western mentality' is supposed to accept the U.S. is done! "Reports of my demise are premature."

I did not say their "house of cards" was in better shape. What I said is that they are not communist and they are not what many believe they are.

a reply to: introvert

Ok. I stand by what I said. What they call it is not indicative of what it actually is.

Also, you state their intent is for it to be a precursor to socialism. That means it is not socialist yet and definitely not communism.

It's not just what they call it, but the model they use to employ it.

It's not communism, no, but it is a socialist country with a socialist market economy, with a socialist constitution, with a communist ruling party.

That is incorrect. The state does not own all property and means of production, etc. Private industry thrives in China. Also, it's important to note that the government does not necessarily own the companies. The government owns shares in the companies and it appears they are, for the most part, banks and oil companies.

It is correct. The state owns all the land, and can expropriate property whenever it chooses. Anyone can start a communist party branch within any organization, and that includes private businesses. In fact, the communist party has infiltrated and influence most private enterprises.

Hyper control, interventionism, currency manipulation — no, China is not a market economy. But it’s worse than that: The Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.) has systematically infiltrated China’s expanding private sector and now operates inside more than half of all nonstate firms; it can manipulate or even control these companies, especially bigger ones, and some foreign ones, too. The modern Chinese economy is a party-corporate conglomerate.

China, the Party-Corporate Complex

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I do not care what you "buy". China is not the communist hell hole people seem to believe. In fact, they are poised to surpass us in not only technology, but also in space endeavors.

The things they have done with their space program is amazing.

Nor do I care about your idyllic painting of China. Yes on technology and space. More than three times the population?

That's a serious cross to bear, financially. Net importers of food and oil adds to the population burden. So does their over leveraged economy. Based on a 15% per anum growth rate! Financial insanity.

A serious player? Of course. Their house of cards is in no better shape than ours financially, however.

Seems the 'western mentality' is supposed to accept the U.S. is done! "Reports of my demise are premature."

I did not say their "house of cards" was in better shape. What I said is that they are not communist and they are not what many believe they are.

Fair enough. Is there a label that fits the Chinese 'hybrid'?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's not just what they call it, but the model they use to employ it. It's not communism, no, but it is a socialist country with a socialist market economy, with a socialist constitution, with a communist ruling party.

I thought you said "precursor" to socialism. Now that has changed?

It is correct. The state owns all the land, and can expropriate property whenever it chooses.

No, that is not correct. The state does not own all land and private property is protected by their constitution. They can expropriate private land as long as the people are compensated. It is just like imminent domain in the US.

Anyone can start a communist party branch within any organization, and that includes private businesses. In fact, the communist party has infiltrated and influence most private enterprises.

But they do now own all of them. That is an important distinction.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s described as a “socialist market economy” or “state capitalism”, and it’s designed by the Communist party to be a preliminary stage of socialism.

What you call it is not necessarily an indication of it's design.

Whatever you want to call it, it works quite well it appears. Private industry is allowed to flourish and the state provides a basic level of existence for it's people, only when necessary, having a very small part of the population in poverty.

But at least you admit it really has nothing to do with communism, as you stated earlier.

"having a very small part of it's population in poverty". Really?? China??

Methinks, you exaggerate.

I believe China's poverty level in well below 10%. The US has a higher poverty level.

My understanding from those traveling and doing business in China is about 2% of that billion plus population benefits from the Communist/Capitalist merger. The rest?

I seriously doubt that so-called 10% have automobiles, cell phones, food stamps, cable TV and the like.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I do not care what you "buy". China is not the communist hell hole people seem to believe. In fact, they are poised to surpass us in not only technology, but also in space endeavors.

The things they have done with their space program is amazing.

Nor do I care about your idyllic painting of China. Yes on technology and space. More than three times the population?

That's a serious cross to bear, financially. Net importers of food and oil adds to the population burden. So does their over leveraged economy. Based on a 15% per anum growth rate! Financial insanity.

A serious player? Of course. Their house of cards is in no better shape than ours financially, however.

Seems the 'western mentality' is supposed to accept the U.S. is done! "Reports of my demise are premature."

I did not say their "house of cards" was in better shape. What I said is that they are not communist and they are not what many believe they are.

Fair enough. Is there a label that fits the Chinese 'hybrid'?

That is a matter of opinion on what to call it. What it cannot be called is either strictly capitalist or strictly communist.

It seems to many people get stuck on their ruling party name and their communist history, and fail to see how they are actually using similar models today that can be seen in western countries.

In another thread about China someone came up with a good label which I have added a single word to and I do think it's accurate as I've lived in China for nearly 11 years...

Authoritarian State Capitalism

That's more or less what it is now. The CCP is just a party which doesn't cling to a set communist dogma. The often expose "socialism with Chinese characteristics". However they are super-corrupt, morally depraved, human rights ignoring, lying, SOBs no matter what you call them.

Also to correct some factual inaccuracies -

Depending on which definition of poor one uses between 10% to 40% of the country is currently poor.

China has raised more people out of "poverty" than any other country in history.

The government can take whatever land they want however it's generally not done like that these days. What they do is buy out as many owners as possible, sell the land to a developer who then uses gangs and threats to intimidate the remaining owners to sell out often at market rates but not always.

Private industry is allowed to flourish - however it can readily be seized by the gov't at any time. It has been done more than 40 times in the last 14 months, especially companies in the financial sector. As stated they all have communists operating inside the company and spying for the gov't and this includes the mightiest - Baidu, Tencent (WeChat) and Alibaba (Taobao).

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
a reply to: intrptr

How wrong you are about that last sentence regarding China.

How misinformed you are about China and US military posturing in Chinas own backyard.

Or just pretending like everyone else, whichever.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MikeA

These are all areas that began with "Well it's not really our problem.

Other 'areas' , i.e., countries, aren't 'our problem' to meddle in.

What logic control freaks make up to justify butting into other nations internal affairs.

I see so if I understand correctly you figure we should stay out of it.

In the most recent past had we just stayed out of it a gallon of gas today would cost about $15 or more. In the 30s had we stayed out of it Australia, India, China, and probably more would now be Japan and your new phone would be around $1000. Once Hitler was finished with England he had plans to attack the US so you would be reading this in German. Because in 1940 there was no way we could have defended against an attack. FDR said it best, "We are making refrigerators while our enemies are making bombs.

a reply to: MikeA

The US goaded the world into WWII. It began with the Wall Street crash of 29.

Sorry about the back to back posting but I haven't been on this thread for a couple of days.

I can't find the post again so I can't reply to it directly however the person asked me why would Japan join China? For the same reason you give your wallet to the gangbanger on the corner. People will do a lot of things with a gun to their head. Before you go there I'm not just talking about a firearm in their case. Should they choose to do so China could destroy Japan's economy like anyone else with a key stroke. Don't think for a second that you can predict what a dictatorship will do tomorrow. Even the USSR had a group government. Good, bad, right or wrong. Dictatorship government on the other hand is at the whims of a single man. They tend to maintain control through fear. How many people are sitting in a cell today in China for nothing more than disagreeing with something HE said. Again I'll point to history because it has been proven time after time.

I forget who said it but "To forget or ignore the past is to be forever prone to repeat the mistakes of your parents"