As I said earlier, they are not doing the exact same business. Feel free to go back earlier in the thread!
Cowbee
China builds up countries it deals with, the West keeps them underdeveloped and over-exploited. I already showed how that is, so I will not copy and paste what I already did.
Communism isn't just providing everything for everyone no matter what. Overpopulation is a problem any economic system will have to deal with, and that's not something that has hard binary boundaries.
No, they are not at all the same, and I explained why already. To put it another way, the average Chinese person lives off of far more Chinese labor, while the average person in the West lives off of far more Global South labor.
The actions aren't the same, though, and I explained and elaborated on why. You never engaged with it, but glossed over it.
It feels like you glossed over that I just said trade isn't Capitalism. Your point relied on "there being no ethical consumption under Capitalism," but that original analysis has nothing to do with the ideology of those producing goods, nor with trade. Trade is a mechanism employed by both Capitalist and Socialist systems, and isn't inherently exploitative.
You need to do more investigation than just that.
Secondly, trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism is not trade. When people speak of that, it's because consumption within a Capitalist framework will always go to the bourgeoisie and usually support Imperialism overseas, but that isn't an inherent quality of trade.
Sure? I read theory but that's not my job.
I appreciate it! 🫡
I said it elsewhere, but I do think now is an excellent time for agitation and developing clear lines.
Fair enough, my wording implied the reforms of Deng Xiaoping were painless and not without their drawbacks. Certainly, some pain and misery would have come, but not nearly to the extent that the dissolution of the Soviet system entirely has wrought upon Eastern Europe and its connected trading partners in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, etc.
You can just stop arguing, because all you've done thus far is make me appear more correct thanks to you dodging my arguments and personally insulting me. Seriously, if you want to delegitimize me, just downvote me and don't engage, I have consistently provided more sources and demonstrated more knowledge of what we are talking about, so every time you avoid that, it rhetorically strengthens my own arguments. I'm only telling you this because pointing it out makes it even more apparent for onlookers, especially when you call me a "mongrel."
To start, your argument is self-defeating. I explained how Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the PRC's economy, and showed how large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. You contradict Marx and call that "Capitalism," which I already showcased earlier as well, with the quotes on gradually appropriating property in the hands of the State.
Next, your opinion on markets contradicts Marx's. Your argument is about the PRC not following Marx, not whether or not they follow your opinion. Your only source on the CPC's lack of dedication to continuing the same process of increasing the productive forces and maintaining public ownership of large firms and key industries? Your word. That's it, really, just your vibe.
Next, you make the unbacked claim that the CPC is a "small elite" that makes a fuck ton of money. Also false, you can check the sources I included earlier, as well as trying to describe a party with 96 million members as "a small elite." Quite silly, considering the number of billionaires in the PRC is shrinking as the economy grows and purchasing power of the working class is steadily rising.
Next, you just say not approving of the CPC will get you shot. This is silly, and not backed by the Harvard study I linked earlier:
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
Or the graphics proving this to be the case:
The western pollsters freely admited that propaganda exists within China, but found most importantly that public opinion was shaped most by the fact that China keeps improving their conditions. It's that simple. Nazi Germany dramatically repressed the people and brutally lowered conditions. This isn't a serious argument.
I do find it funny that you admit that I'm well-sourced, but provide none of your own and then personally insult me, rather than address my arguments. More legitimacy for my own arguments for free, I guess? Thanks!
Sorry to inform you, but the Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of Communism" to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.
More personal insults, more free legitimacy. No, I'll keep this going for as long as you help me show others here why anticommunism is founded on a rejection of facts and an adherance to the almighty "because I said so."
My point has never been that their actions are the same. You boiled down complex relations to simple "trade," when the complexities and directions make it entirely different in outcome. That's like saying a surgeon and a knife-murderer are the same, because they both cut people.