Asking this because i’m a newbie in the topic of socialism and i want to understand whether China is actually considerable socialist or not. A lot of the stuff we see are Chinese brands, owned by privates (at least i think so, correct me if i’m wrong), making tons of capital. So what’s actually going on?
China isn’t capitalist, what’s the point of sharing documents on unequal exchange and expecting a ban? China is exploited by the west to a decent degree, but they are developing rapidly and undermine that very system.
whats the point of ‘developing rapidly’ if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so? 🤷🏿♂️
Marxism is not a moral philosophy. The purpose of rapidly developing is to develop into the conditions where there will not be antagonistic contradictions between socialized ownership and the level of development of the productive forces. The base of marketization is in highly decentralized production, the base of socialized ownership is in highly centralized and developed productive forces. The proletariat of China has consistently been uplifted decade after decade.
Further, unequal exchange is generally about international trade, not internal trade.
…ok…
Now whats the point of ‘developing rapidly’ if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so? 🤷🏿♂️
I genuinely do not get your point. The purpose of developing rapidly is to uplift the proletariat rapidly and achieve communism faster.
…ok…
Now whats the point of ‘developing rapidly’ if you need to exploit some members of the proletariat to do so?
(Also Im still waiting on your sources for me to read about unequal exchange … 🍿🤭)
I gave you a source already, and the purpose of developing the productive forces rapidly is to reach the level at which exploitation is economically unfeasible, when there will not be an antagonistic contradiction between social ownership and decentralized production. I don’t know what your point is.
it says address not found.
Also …that source isnt a study… How can you debunk a study without one of your own?
That source is just an explanation of Unequal Exchange, which is an entirely different thing that what you think it is. What is your point, exactly?