this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
1507 points (77.8% liked)
Memes
45608 readers
1120 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean there is, but all of the major nations fall somewhere in the middle of the capitalism / socialism spectrum.
China, a communist nation, has private businesses. The US, a capitalist nation, has public infrastructure and social safety nets.
It’s a gradient, and very few nations are 100% on the edge of the spectrum.
China is socialist under Primary Stage Socialism with development emphasized. Social safety nets and public infrastructure are not automatically steps towards socialism (in the first place because the U.S. is imperialist and finances these gains with the wealth of other nations with the aim of pacifying conflict rather than ushering in genuine positive change). This spectrum approach ignores political and developmental realities, in the first place with China being a dictatorship of the proletariat and the US being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and with private businesses subordinated at every step to the popular mass party (and with the final goal of expelling them when socialism is fully developed (1949/1950), since China is a backward nation that did not undergo a capitalist period before developing the DOTP. The “more state or more private” dichotomy is imo an incorrect way of looking at things.
Is it, though? I certainly don't see the Chinese political leadership needing to put in considerable labour for their income. In practice, they don't look so different from American business and political elites, to me.
Look I understand where you're coming from with this, and when you're talking about America in particular I'm relatively on board. But I suspect this was intended to refer to western capitalist democracies more broadly, and while I understand what you mean, I simply don't agree that it's fair to call a democracy using a serious democratic system running free and fair elections a "dictatorship" in the same paragraph as you're calling China a dictatorship, as though the two are comparable.
Yeah, FPTP is fundamentally anti-democratic, and most democracies have some flaws in how free or fair they are, with the result being that they're less than perfectly democratic. The US is particularly bad, but even worse is a place like Singapore, which barely pretends to be a fair democracy. But if you mean to suggest the same of countries like Australia, France, and Germany, I'm just not on board. To pretend even America is on the same level of being a dictatorship as China is ludicrous.
I say this as someone who is rather anti-capitalist in general. In theory, I think the ideals of socialism are fantastic, and from what I've seen socialists say about how the system could work, I don't disagree.
But then I see socialists do things like pretend America is just as much of a dictatorship as China or (as I saw the creator of the explicitly socialist Second Thought YouTube channel "Second Thought" do on his news channel) side with Russia (or at least, against NATO and Ukraine) in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or blame America for China's aggressive policy towards Taiwan. And as much as I'm on board with socialist economic ideals, I also fundamentally believe in the rights of individual freedoms afforded by liberal democracies.
I don't think that these have to be in conflict, but for some reason every time I see someone espousing socialism they seem to end up supportive highly oppressive regimes like China and Russia. It makes it very hard (read: impossible) to actually take that final step into embracing the label of "socialist".
Dictatorship, to Marxists, refers to the ruling class. After Feudalism, the class character is either proletarian, capitalist/bourgeosie, or Napoleonic. In this case, all liberal democracies are dictatorships. If it's a state, it requires dictatorship by a class or class relationship. If the dictatorship was deemed unncessary, or the contradiction between classes fell, then no states would be necessary. As far as your point on Taiwan, almost all countries recognized by the UN observe One-China policy as required by formal relationships with the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has territorial claims to Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, even though they have their own distinct governments. To recognize formal relations with Taiwan is to also recognize China, only in that case meaning the Republic of China (ROC) rather than the PRC. As for NATO? There are plenty of videos to watch if you are curious, but NATO itself is tied to its history with the Operation Gladio, and its purpose was to be an alliance against the USSR. Now that the USSR is long gone, any use of NATO is extremely questionable, as if arming and funding fascists wasn't bad enough.