>In what universe? The private cpitalist sector has 60% of GDP share, 50% of tax revenue, 80% of urban employment, and it's not like thd public sector isn't involved in international commodity production as well (Sinopec and friends). Leasing urban land for 99 years isn't "socialized", and a lot of the farmland was de-collectivized. This is a preposterous claim.
lol, you act as if you have a monopoly on the 100% correct statistics whereas every paper compiled by bourgeois economists often come to varying conclusions. Workforce employed by the public sector for example is estimated between 30% and 70% depending on who you ask. And my personal suspicision is that ideological bias plays a role too depending on whether the author wants to portray China as a "communist dictatorship" or "more capitalist than the West".
GDP is also only of limited utility for us as, for example, the service sector is vastly private but it tells you nothing about what industries are actually under public control and the political power that comes with it. For example, 2/3 of all enterprises in China are private (POE), but 3/4 of all industry is capitalized by the state. This remarkably distorts the actual numbers to the point where - applying bourgeois economics - it becomes harder to actually give a definite number on the public sector. One point of contention for example is the classification of township and village enterprises
(TVE) which are run by rural collectives but often register as private enterprises. They're still dominating China's countryside - what was decollectived were Mao's communes which didn't work but the actual collectives still continued to exist with the introduction of Deng's household responsibility system. Those farms are increasingly organized as collective farms:
Leased land doesn't change the ownership (= political power). Whether or not damage is caused by the lessee or by the owner makes a difference, in terms of land we are talking environmental destruction here. My numbers are taken from here:
>Hourly work/piece work firmly exists under capitalism as well, this doesn't mean anything as long as the surplus product is usurped by bourgeois
I guess you mean surplus value. There is no bourgeois in the state sector, unless you consider bureaucrats to be capitalists. I especially said for a reason that exploitation exists in China, and that only in some state enterprises we have a different mode of distribution. Where different relations of production exist different modes of distribution will also emerge. This is basic Marxism.
>And they have no plans to abolish it. Maybe after 2078?
Ding Xiaoqing writes:
<It is another picture in China, where the market currently plays a more important role and a fundamental one in resource allocation after the reform and global opening-up. However, the planning dimension is not missing. It is the backbone of macroeconomic regulation, which is stronger than that in any capitalist nation. With the opening up we have moved from dominant planned regulation and a 'planned commodity economy' to a 'socialist market economy.' No one mix of the market and planning is correct for all times and situations; it all depends on concrete economic and global conditions. Economic and technological conditions may not exist to permit the implementation of a totally planned economy, abolishing the production and circulation of commodities. But the market economy has its inherent deficiency and it is mistaken to idealize or absolutize it. When the conditions for abolishing the relations of commodity and money and implementing a totally planned economy arise, this will happen in an inevitable historical process.
Those cenentary goals are not really saying anything about the mode of production, but considering that the market would probably have "played itself out" by then it's reasonable that economic change follows, I assume growth grates will slow down anyway.
>If you bother to read their five-year plans, it is no different than bourgeois parties forming policy plans. They firmly have a "socialist (sic) market economy" in place and even say so. Regulation of markets exists in every single capitalist nation on Earth, ancap is a fantasy. The fact that thd CPC formulates longer-term strategies is advantageous against short-sighted liberal capitalists, but it is still undeniable how much they are subject to market forces.
I would go one step further (and may probably sound heretic to some) but socialist planning is actually an outgrowth of capitalism planning (that seems to have been Lenin's view as well) the difference is the actual manifestation of political power (what class rules over the others?) which of course needs economic safeguards such as the questions of who owns the key industries, who owns the soil, etc. - and no, the Chinese model of economic planning is not the same as planned state monopoly capitalism with the centrally planned entangled monopolies entirely dependent on super profits and a ridiculous financialization on top which is the model we find in Europe, North America and Japan. The embryo for socialist economic planning is already there but the economy is entirely controlled by monopolies. Just compare China's coronavirus response to the response in countries under state monopoly capitalism. In reality, the Chinese state enterprises serve as the bloated belly of the economy, they are massively indebted and "soak up" the contradictions stemming from the market system and the private sector. That they're - in the last instance - not determined by profitability brings them into contradiction with their Western trading partners, the EU has openly declared that they won't agree to the trade agreement they've been trying to get since decades as long as SOEs do not adhere to the profit motive and "free" market competition. See here:
Take it straight from the mouthpiece of the German bourgeoisie. Those are exactly the "tyrannic inroads" Marx advocated for the transitional stage.
>You are using Lenin to justify bourgeois trickle-down economics with a medium-large but not dominant state capitalist sector. Even states like Norway or Saudi-Arabia have a larger state sector if this is your criterium for socialism.
You know very well that they're entirely dependent on oil to be like this, also, I'd like this sourced. Do you think a country that has no economy but literal nomads but pays itself off with oil is comparable to an actual diverse economy like the Chinese?
>You are furthermore comparing a 10-year NEP after two devastaing wars in semi-feudal state to 70 (!!!) years of "NEP" in China [1980 - 2050]. There was a reason Stalin didn't let NEPmen and kulaks into the party, or why he didn't keep it running forever. Think about what a 70 year "NEP" means.
The preliminary stage of socialism isn't the same as the NEP, correct. The industry is already built up, but China is still a middle income country. My point is that what they're doing isn't some crazy revisionist blasphemic betrayal of Marxism. The bourgeoisie is not in power in China and won't be in the foreseeable future.
>Lmao at acting like they have labor value calculations
When did I say that?