The share of China’s national income earned by the top 10% of the population has increased from 27% in 1978 to 41% in 2015, nearing the U.S.’s 45% and surpassing France’s 32%.
Why is income inequality rising? Are you saying the Chinese working class are enjoying the trickle-down benefits of billionaires getting richer?
Further, you have no proof of the PRC lying about pubkic ownership.
Again, billionaires, and their existence, is proof that the profits are not publicly owned.
Even further, they cannot indefinitely build towards Socialism.
No they can just lie and say “we’re in a transitionary phase to socialism” indefinitely while being more repressively capitalist than America could ever dream of.
as firms grow and get folded into the public sector and socialization increases
Again from the same link posted above, the opposite is happening, China is privatizing.
“The state-owned (vs. privately-owned) share of China’s wealth fell from 70% to about 30%”
The presence of structures potentially contradictory to higher stages of Socialism, like banks, stock markets, and billionaires, does not mean they are not progressing towards those higher stages.
So what does then? If income inequality is rising, billionaires are getting richer, public ownership is disappearing, privatization is increasing, then what are you basing this idea that they are “progressing towards those higher stages” on?
Given our prior interactions, I already know you aren’t a Marxist, why should anyone trust your evaluation of Marxism?
I’m a socialist. I’m trying to get you to think about your definitions by challenging what you believe with the facts. Like this idea that China is “working towards socialism”.
Do you also believe Trump is “working towards Christian values”?
So what does then? If income inequality is rising, billionaires are getting richer, public ownership is disappearing, privatization is increasing, then what are you basing this idea that they are “progressing towards those higher stages” on?
The thing is, the reverse is true on all of those. You are cherry picking old, outdated data, and are using vague definitions that contradict Marx. You don’t have facts, so you lie. This is why you call a largely publicly driven economy “Capitalist,” you have nothing but vibes.
Billionaires, but not their billions?
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china
Why is income inequality rising? Are you saying the Chinese working class are enjoying the trickle-down benefits of billionaires getting richer?
Again, billionaires, and their existence, is proof that the profits are not publicly owned.
No they can just lie and say “we’re in a transitionary phase to socialism” indefinitely while being more repressively capitalist than America could ever dream of.
Again from the same link posted above, the opposite is happening, China is privatizing.
“The state-owned (vs. privately-owned) share of China’s wealth fell from 70% to about 30%”
So what does then? If income inequality is rising, billionaires are getting richer, public ownership is disappearing, privatization is increasing, then what are you basing this idea that they are “progressing towards those higher stages” on?
I’m a socialist. I’m trying to get you to think about your definitions by challenging what you believe with the facts. Like this idea that China is “working towards socialism”.
Do you also believe Trump is “working towards Christian values”?
Nice of you to cut off your data a decade ago, now that trends are reversing. Very intellectually honest of you! And you continue to use confused requirements for Socialism, like public ownership of profit rather than the Means of Production. All of your analysis boils down to share of wealth, rather than the direction of the economy and analysis of class dynamics. You also cherry pick your data, using old data. Using modern data, we can see public ownership is increasing, and private is decreasing. Same with the ultra wealthy, they are decreasing, while working class income is rising.
The thing is, the reverse is true on all of those. You are cherry picking old, outdated data, and are using vague definitions that contradict Marx. You don’t have facts, so you lie. This is why you call a largely publicly driven economy “Capitalist,” you have nothing but vibes.