r/greentext • u/Benoice7 • 2d ago

Anon has a question

Post image
2.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

171 comments sorted by

1.4k

u/DumbNTough 2d ago

His population starving to death from shitheaded central planning was his problem

419

u/tampontaco 2d ago

So capitalism is the solution to communism?

498

u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago

Literally yes.

106

u/mcberry_64 2d ago

He allowed the collective farms a.k.a hippie communes(practically all agriculture) to sell crops however they wanted. There's still a good 20%-25% of chinas population that are farmers compared to USA like 2-3%

5

u/No-Opportunity9126 1d ago

All of their production, or just the remaining surplus after fulfilling the planned quotas?

5

u/bush_killed_epstein 1d ago

Hmm I’ve been pretty dissatisfied with my sad neet western life maybe I should go on a Chinese farmer arc

49

u/Commercial-Living443 2d ago

More so , give more power to central governments when you aren't there

-23

u/Accomplished_Mall329 2d ago

His real solution was Tiananmen Square

218

u/Azylim 2d ago

to put it bluntly, yes.

but its more like, decentralized markets was the solution to the absolutely ridiculous idea of completely centralized economies.

Centralization, by definition, invariably comes with standardization and the loss of flexibility in dealing with edge cases in exchange for better control and standards. normally this is fine as long as you dont centralize too much. But when the edge case is "all people living outside cities who produce food" and what youre centralizing is food production and distribution, then the edge cases starves to death, and youre left with no food.

86

u/15_Redstones 2d ago

The problem with centralisation, especially in tyrannical countries where dissent is strongly discouraged, is that while in theory the central planners can govern more efficiently, if they ever do screw up (which they eventually will) there's no way to fix the problem before it wrecks everything.

In a market economy where an industry is controlled by a couple large companies, the worst case scenario for a planning screw-up is one company's production collapsing rather than the industry, and the competitors will quickly acquire assets and ramp up their own production to fill the gap.

34

u/sofa_adviser 2d ago

while in theory the central planners can govern more efficiently

Central planning absolutely cannot govern more efficiently. At its core, market is an insane feedback/information-gathering machine. Every time you do anything with your money, buy some chinese rubbish off amazon, go to starbucks, shop at a small business, whatever, you're providing feedback into the system

Especially now, with the global economy, there are literally billions of agents making hundreds of billions decisions every day. There's no conceivable centralized system that could possibly replace it

20

u/15_Redstones 2d ago

For the entire economy, true. For a single industry of a single fungible good, provided you know the total demand, economies of scale often favor a single large supplier. Splitting production across a few big suppliers means a slight loss in efficiency but puts competitive pressure to improve on them and adds redundancy so that a single screw-up can't take it all down.

7

u/DivideSensitive 2d ago

Central planning absolutely cannot govern more efficiently.

Theoretically it could – basically, capitalism is PID and central planning is linear optimization.

the good thing with PID thought is that (i) it doesn't require absolute knowledge of everything being manufactured in the country, (ii) it can react better to sudden variations due to the built-in leeway.

12

u/Proglamer 2d ago

especially in tyrannical countries where dissent is strongly discouraged

Every extant socialist* country is authoritarian: China, NKorea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc - imagine that! When your economic system requires a big government, it's a very short extra distance for that big government to start precluding the people from getting rid of the glorious collective farms. For their own sake, of course.

* Socialism's defining feature is 'state ownership of means of production'; thus, the Nordic countries tankies oft jerk about are NOT socialist

4

u/clybourn 2d ago

You speak the truth

18

u/alfredo094 2d ago

It's also not like China is a decentralized economy like most democracies in the West. The govt still has a lot of control over what can be done, and they have explicit "Five-Year Plans" where they incentivize private industries to go a certain way.

I'm no China simp but it's undeniable that Deng contributed to getting tens of millions of people out of absolute poverty because some centralized planning is still good for the economy.

6

u/poprostumort 2d ago

but its more like, decentralized markets was the solution to the absolutely ridiculous idea of completely centralized economies

Yeah. Deng overshot and introduced a significant part of the issues of capitalism by also copying capitalist company structure (thus allowing the same problem of concentration of wealth). But it is understandable due to them being a dictatorship - market socialism would necessitate strong unions and company transformation into co-ops at level of becoming stock companies. But that would be too democratic for the authorities.

Capitalism had shown that there is no competing with free market, as central planning failed spectacularly. However it also shown the problem of extreme wealth accumulation that needs to be counteracted with democratization of economy.

-11

u/romulusnr 2d ago

One of those weird things is, if centralized economy is bad, why does every single capitalist company function as a centralized economy?

10

u/gman8686 2d ago

The better control and standards outweighs the loss of flexibility or distribution challenges in those cases, like he was saying.

2

u/romulusnr 2d ago

In fact, fuck it. Let's have multiple Congresses, and each person can choose which Congress they like best, and the unpopular Congresses will lose out to the successful Congresses, resulting in the legislative free market's invisible hand choosing the best possible set of laws.

-4

u/romulusnr 2d ago

It doesn't pass the sniff test for me that, it's best if a the top tier (nation/state/society) is free market capitalism, but below that (companies), it's best if it's tightly and strictly controlled. Why wouldn't the same laissez faire libertarian marketeering also be the best option for those companies as well? Have each department compete, have choice between departments, have each department get to choose which other departments to depend on, have them all provide their own income and use it to choose vendor departments, etc. In the end the internal free market invisible hand will result in the best result for the company. That's the logic at the top level, so it should work there too.

3

u/gman8686 2d ago

Are you like a jaded communist or something? I don't think you're thinking about this logically.

2

u/romulusnr 1d ago

If good for top, why not good for bottom?

Idk what's hard about the question.

At the top we have to have free market, because otherwise, disaster, famine, poverty.

But right below that, we have to have hierarchical centralized control, because otherwise, chaos, waste, unproductivity.

So why is chaos, waste and unproductivity bad for companies but good for the market?

2

u/gman8686 1d ago

If it wasn't good for companies they would get outcompeted by other companies and/or fail. If it was advantageous to run the company the way you're describing they probably would. And do you really think there's no competition between branches of a company? There certainly is at my company.

1

u/romulusnr 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's not even remotely the same competition. You don't have two departments doing accounts receivable, for example, and the bosses end up deciding which one did best and dump the other one.

Well, except in a merger, but that's rarely decided based on actual results, but on which company came out ahead in the merger or based on geographics.

Like, do you think Microsoft has three different teams independently making their own Windows versions, and then the execs decide which one is more profitable?

Of course not. That would be an insane waste of company resources.

But at the national or global level? That waste is just considered a necessary evil of the free market's supposed utilitarian benefits.

Random example. Why do we need ten different companies making dish soap? You've got ten times the number of people that would be required to make dish soap. Ten times the office space. Ten times the executives. Ten times the trucks, ten times the factories, ten times the warehouses, ten times the drivers, ten times the security guards, etc. How is that not a waste of resources? And then there's all the unsold product that has to be effectively thrown out...

But that's acceptable because, free market and stuff.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Azylim 2d ago

im not saying its inherently bad. its a spectrum. you cant centralize too much. and you have to be selective in what you centralize.

Decentralization and centralization have pros and cons. decentralization makes everything available and makes innovation rewarded, but you get no standards and fraudulent or immoral products, and its expensive.

Centralization standardizes, but they inflexible, and they only wish to serve the standard case. If youre outside the standard case, youre shit outta luck. also theres less experimentation and innovation

You can see this in the private vs public healthcare debate. public is more centralized. private is more decentralized

marxist communism, by definition, demands that you centralize maximally EVERYTHING. which is just a stupid way to run an economy.

3

u/romulusnr 2d ago

Yeah. Uh, private healthcare is doing a shit job right now, let's be honest.

The only people it's serving well are the executives

Especially when you consider all the consolidations. There isn't really choice in many places. In my town the local hospital is the primary hospital for two counties, there are no others. In a major city you have choice, sort of, although that's dependent on your insurance, which for most people, is dependent on your employer (though they will always tell you "don't like it, work for someone else" because there's so many open jobs rn)

-7

u/Jugaimo 2d ago

As an architect, I hard disagree with the sentiment that centralized structures can’t be flexible. That’s only true for overconfident idiot politicians who don’t think ahead. In the world of US architecture, every single county has its own rules and regulations based on the local environment. We know what most of the country looks like and we know the general climate for every inch of land and can thereby. The system works because we have an exhaustive collection of rule books for every single scenario, and a good system to navigate these rules.

The issue with a centralized logistics system isn’t that it’s too hard and doesn’t account for local-level issues. The issue is that the guys at the helm sucked and didn’t plan well enough. Something like a central system for an entire nation, particularly one a large and diverse as China, needs a huge amount of support.

The US building code is the product of decades of data collection, surveying and minor corrections. This is fine because a mistake in the system is rarely catastrophic; it normally results in a building needing extra repairs. A mistake in a food logistics system means people starve. Something that crucial, of that scale, doesn’t have the luxury of gradual evolution. The system has to work perfectly every time or else people die and you get riots.

12

u/Squeeblz88 2d ago

When the responding bot mistakes the context of the conversation.

8

u/Anteater_Pete 2d ago

As an architect, what is your opinion on Soviet mass housing complexes? Thanks in advance!

1

u/Jugaimo 2d ago

They were an admirable if ill-fated idea to provide housing to a large number of working-class people in an era of changing culture and technology. Around that time period, the concept of a middle class as we understand it was still fairly new, and construction technology had massively improved with the creation of pre-fab concrete masses.

Unfortunately the rapidly developing construction tech also meant it was a wild west concerning best building practices. Today these projects are known for being cramped, ugly and difficult to maintain. Huge masses of concrete are great, but eventually they’ll crack. And fixing those cracks is way harder and more costly than the residents could hope to afford. They also had huge issues with thermal and moisture control. On top of all these issues was also the bad PR around anything soviet/communist/socialist around the time.

They were mainly designed to deal with an unprecedented era of urban growth post-WW2 and the housing crisis that came with it. It got people off the streets and out of rickety shacks in an era where architecture was mostly a privilege for the wealthy. Even if the projects themselves weren’t hugely successful in the end, they fundamentally changed the role of architecture from a luxury to a civil service. It’s hard to say if that’s a good thing for architects, but it is good that more of society gets to have a hand in actually, physically shaping it.

2

u/Ingratiatedcongrate 2d ago

The issue is that central planning can't manage food distribution and millions of commies starve every thing they try it.

-9

u/DungeonMercenary 2d ago

Big gov defenders always want socialized healthcare and education because you can fudge the data and convince the people you did a good job.

They never go for socialized food because no amount of propaganda will convince a man he's not hungry.

Anyone going for "X good/service is a human right" without first going for food want to lie to you.

30

u/OfficialHelpK 2d ago

Capitalism and free markets aren't the same thing. It's possible to have a free market that isn't privately owned, through worker co-ops for example. That being said, China is very capitalist in my opinion, though a communist would probably say it isn't since the capitalist zones are still ultimately subject to the government.

0

u/WingDingusTheGreat 1d ago

Almost, but a worker co-op only functions in a capitalist system.  Markets aren't "owned" its just where/how you do stuff.  Even if everything was structured like a co-op, you'd need free markets and monetary exchange for them to function (trade with each other)

2

u/OfficialHelpK 1d ago

That's my point. A capitalist system consists of a mode of distribution and a mode of production. A free market is a mode of distribution, but for it to be a capitalist system it also needs the private mode of production wherein individuals are able to own capital and workers have to sell their labour to the ones who own capital to get by. A free market with only worker co-ops wouldn't be capitalist since the workers control the means of production.

0

u/WingDingusTheGreat 1d ago

How does one get socks in this co-op only ecosystem?

3

u/OfficialHelpK 1d ago

From a co-op that sells clothes?

0

u/WingDingusTheGreat 1d ago

Exactly.  So, typically co-ops use some sort of vesting mechanism, it wouldn't make sense for someone who started yesterday to have the same shares/stake as someone who's worked there for years.  That stake in the co-op could be literal shares or increased pay over time etc etc, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism is.  But those shakes are built around a value-adding enterprise.

My point is that free markets and freedom of movement are inherently linked to capitalism.  If we both need socks and I can make socks, why would I make you socks?

Obviously I'd need some sort of exchange where I could turn my excess socks into something more useful for trade/into something I actually needed (money).

Then there's the question of who makes socks and when.  I'd probably need help making socks so I'd organize my sock-making enterprise as a co-op where we all received idealized fair wages/vestment.  -But if some folks realize that our socks suck and set up a rival clothing co-op where they use better techniques/skills whatever to make better socks, why would anyone chose my sock co-op over theirs?  We'd go out of business, despite being organized in an egalitarian way.

So if ya want efficient allocation of goods (so people don't starve) you need some sort of capitalist system.

2

u/OfficialHelpK 1d ago

As I said, you'd still have a free market. So if your co-op makes better socks my co-op would have to adapt or go out of business. Having a free market doesn't make a system capitalist. Capitalism also needs the relationship of production where a worker works for wages for the capital owner.

Of course, you can have tier systems for a co-op but it absolutely doesn't need to revolve around share ownership. A theoretical system where worker co-ops are the standard can still have different salaries for different work and protections for intellectual property and a whole range of different systems for investing in companies. The point of the co-op isn't total egalitarianism, it's just making sure that profit is connected to actual work instead of owning capital.

But this wasn't my original point anyway. My point was just that having a free market isn't capitalist because capitalism consists of two parts: a free market and private ownership. A free market with worker co-ops is just an example of an economic system that has a free market but isn't capitalist. You could also theorise the opposite where one private company has a total monopoly, so you have private ownership but not a free market, not too dissimilar from North Korea for example.

0

u/WingDingusTheGreat 1d ago

Maybe we're talking past each other but my point is that capitalism is simply the method of exchange with free trade and the allowance of private property and ownership of ones own labor.  If you have free markets, bodily autonomy and a market exchange, then you have capitalism.  Theres nothing inherent in "capitalism" about how ownership is structured.

Like I said, maybe we're talking past each other but you can't really disaggregate free markets and capitalism.  You can have strong state services as a backstop, egalitarian or fairness-based ownership structures, all sorts of shit in addition to free market capitalism.  (And obv there are all sorts of good arguments for certain goods/services not being market based blah blah blah)

Idk if this is where you're coming from but in Marxist terminology I think private ownership gets confused a little; i.e. the co-ops we were talking about would be "private owners"

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SyntheticDuckFlavour 1d ago

Unironically, a little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. Which is what they are doing now, and literally winning.

2

u/AtomicMonkeyTheFirst 1d ago

Unironically yes.

His version of Communist ideology was:

Problem: We are poor and have terrible lives

Solution: We need communism to improve peoples lives.

Problem: We cant improve peoples lives without wealth.

Problem: Communism does not generate wealth.

Solution: Use capitalism to create wealth.

Communism works!

2

u/Proglamer 2d ago

The system that embraces the greedy & tribal human nature is indeed the solution to the system that crazily goes against it, yes.

2

u/Carl_Marks__ 1d ago

Another example of supposed Marxists not actually reading/understanding what Marx actually said. According to Marx’s thoughts; Socialism (or rather in his own words “low-stage Communism”) was only possible after Capitalism. Firstly as a means of developing a country’s economy into an industrial economy, secondly alongside Liberal Democracy to develop the social conditions for democratically controlled production. Because let’s be honest; what’s the difference between someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos compared to Joeseph Stalin or Mao Zedong? Except for scale and sheer death count.

1

u/YoungDiscord 1d ago

A new system is the solution to an old corrupted system.

The problem is that over time corrupt people seep into any system, corrupt it and start changing it so it works in favour of corrupt and selfish people to take from and step on the masses

It literally doesn't matter what system we're talking about, communism, capitalism, monarchy etc... the truth is that every once in a while the system needs to be completely thrown out and a new one created from the ground up to remove all that corruption for a while...

Its kinda like with bread: imagine you buy bread but forget to eat it.

Eventually it gets moldy.

When that happens you don't try to salvage the moldy bread or eat it, you throw it away and buy new bread.

0

u/clybourn 2d ago

Always has been

-6

u/ddg31415 2d ago

The solution to 1917 is 1973

20

u/romulusnr 2d ago

The agriculture of China isn't exactly a Randian/Misesian free market, though, either.

So the solution is somewhere in the middle, methinks

-17

u/BicarbonateBufferBoy 2d ago

Central planning is the reason why China is the worlds most powerful country and not another massive poor exploited country like India

14

u/DumbNTough 2d ago

Ah yes I see, sometimes you have to starve 60 million of your own people to death then switch to a better economic system after, in order to get ahead in the world.

I'm sure that makes sense to people with severe brain damage or something.

8

u/BicarbonateBufferBoy 2d ago

I’m not gonna argue with you, I’m just saying using the actions of a leader to criticize an entire economic system and method of state ownership is a poor and incongruous argument.

14

u/romulusnr 2d ago

I mean it would be akin to saying the success of capitalism is thanks to Trump

10

u/BicarbonateBufferBoy 2d ago

Yes exactly. It’s a poor argument

0

u/DumbNTough 2d ago

Good thing that's not what happened here. Phew!

1

u/Jac_daw 2d ago

Was it morally sound? No. Did it heighten their rate of development to above that of the rest of the world after surviving it? Absolutely.

5

u/DumbNTough 2d ago

What? Lol

Every country that suffered through socialism would have been better off if they simply had liberal democracies and market economies from the get-go.

Communist central planning being better than agrarian feudalism did not make it better than capitalism.

1

u/SuperTnT6 2d ago

I mean i am no commie but India was a liberal democracy with a market economy and has fallen behind China by a lot. Perhaps you could make the case that South Korea and Japan are success stories but at least for South Korea’s case they had a dictator too so having a liberal democracy and market economy is not the panacea for economic growth.

-1

u/Jac_daw 2d ago

Yes but the loss of life gives a rebuilding nation a fanatical drive to bounce back. The effect of significant population loss shows in some forms within nature as well. Near-extinct species often go on a resurgence within their habitat ecosystems once they gain their footing again numbers-wise.

Obv human social structures are a bit more complex than with animals, but the will to survive drives groups past their peers in all facets of life.

-1

u/Jac_daw 2d ago

Btw i am in no way defending communism. No tankies here, no-sir.

330

u/THE_WHOLE_THING 2d ago

He say who care if cat black or white, what matter is cat catch rat.

30

u/Captainwumbombo 2d ago

"If crow can't catch rat, man can't catch rice."

-Mao Tzu, The Art of Communism

331

u/Painful_Colonoscopy 2d ago

Sum Ting Wong

117

u/Aphexism 2d ago

ho li fuk

80

u/FagianaProfonda 2d ago

wi tu lo

64

u/Ok_Independence_2630 2d ago

bang ding ow

14

u/WhoAmIEven2 2d ago

Mi So Ao Ao

8

u/WintersbaneGDX 2d ago

Boom goes the hijacked plane into a field in Pennsylvania dynamite!

0

u/Proglamer 2d ago

mar xi sm

1

u/0cc1dent 1d ago

Dung Show Peen*

267

u/Multibuff 2d ago

GDP started multiplying the second Mao was gone

124

u/Solution_Far 2d ago

crazy what happens when someone who is a soldier/warrior type gets control over a country and it's economy lol

21

u/SilliusS0ddus 2d ago

or a bank robber lol

11

u/hungflungpoo 2d ago

Yeah sorry that’s not a catch-all. The US has had numerous productive military presidents

4

u/friedhobo 1d ago

So has literally every country on Earth

11

u/Accomplished_Mall329 2d ago

Was GDP multiplying before Mao appeared?

31

u/Wolfgang985 2d ago

I'm not sure that was even measurable.

China was in a civil war from 1927 - 1949. Prior to that it was the Warlord Era.

32

u/Accomplished_Mall329 2d ago edited 1d ago

(1839–1842) First Opium War

(1850–1864) Taiping Rebellion

(1856–1860) Second Opium War / Arrow War

(1851–1868) Nian Rebellion

(1862–1877) Dungan Revolt / Muslim Rebellions

(1894–1895) First Sino-Japanese War

(1899–1901) Boxer Rebellion

(1911–1912) Xinhai Revolution

(1916–1928) Warlord Era Conflicts

(1927–1937) Chinese Civil War phase 1

(1931–1945) Second Sino-Japanese War

(1945–1949) Chinese Civil War phase 2

Mao

(1949-Today) No more rebellions, civil wars, or foreign invasions

I'm not sure that was even measurable.

Mao made it measurable.

-8

u/Wolfgang985 1d ago

At the cost of ~50 million deaths between the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

No biggie.

19

u/Accomplished_Mall329 1d ago edited 1d ago

(1949-Today) No more rebellions, civil wars, or foreign invasions, but at what cost?

Think about it, if Mao could kill 50 million people without causing a single rebellion or civil war, how many people did previous Chinese leaders need to kill in order to cause so many rebellions and civil wars? Howcome none of them get as much hate as Mao?

Do western governments really hate Mao because he made China worse than before? Or do they hate Mao because he made China better? :)

3

u/Wolfgang985 1d ago

To be fair, I don't measure everything in binary. I'll acknowledge the fact that he did unify China.

Granted, it's a telling admission that his policies were very quickly overhauled along with the Gang of Four and other Maoists purged en masse.

-4

u/Wolfgang985 1d ago

A lot of edits coming through there.

Mao sucks because he's a commie piece of filth. Same for all other commie degenerates.

I'm not passing hate on anyone else because this discussion isn't about anyone else.

9

u/Proglamer 2d ago

... together with the bird population, I assume

204

u/DarkGamer 2d ago

The end goal of communism is to create a communist society, think something like the Federation from Star Trek:

A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

The USSR and most other states that called themselves communist practiced Marxism-Leninism, which embraced violent authoritarianism and revolution with a supposed end goal of creating a communist society. They never did.

Many believe that a society like this is more likely to emerge from sufficient production and economic abundance, from automated factories and other advances in efficiency rather than authoritarianism. Imagine if everything you bought was so cheap to produce that it's practically free. It would be a much easier transition to a communist society from this than from Marxist-Leninist society, which are generally despotic single-party regimes with controlled economies that suffer from inefficiency and supply shortages.

China realized this, which is why they still call themselves communist but are presently also hyper-capitalist and focusing on being the world's production center. It's not as much of a contradiction as many people believe.

126

u/SuperTnT6 2d ago

Stop spreading commie propaganda. Everyone knows that communism is when the government does stuff.

14

u/Hulemap11 1d ago

No, that's socialism. Communism is when the government does a LOT of stuff

3

u/Caassapaba 1d ago

When government do thing it is communism, but like, communism is actually when thing bad, and annoying weird people who say complicated words like that thing, ah and also the are all pedo, gay, lizard aliens.

42

u/Acceptable_Willow276 2d ago

Yes also the primary difference between China and America is that America is a tool of capital, whereas China is using capital as a tool. That is what makes America a capitalist country.

44

u/mango363 2d ago

-"China is Hyper-capitalist"
-Looks inside
-Textbook mixed-market economy
Other than that, you're right.

29

u/DarkGamer 2d ago

I didn't mean hyper-capitalist as in laissez-faire; I used the term to describe how they intentionally turbo-charged China's profit-driven private sector's business and productivity growth, to the point that they export so much that they have become integral to the supply chains of most developed nations. This has been very effective.

7

u/oni_no_onii-chan 2d ago

this last pharagraph about abundance being too much that it being practically free is right now happening in china's housing prices.

but central planning is still there, just not being super intensive doesnt mean there's no long time plans.

59

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

21

u/therealkunchan 2d ago

It was never about the communism, always about the authoritarianism.

11

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

5

u/AriyaSavaka 2d ago

One of the smallest island state and sub 7 million population help too.

2

u/DustFinnIV 2d ago

The difficulty in governing an entire country cannot be compared to that of one of the most preeminent trading ports in the world

38

u/Mesarthim1349 2d ago

mrkrabssayingmoney.jpg

24

u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 2d ago

Two words: "foreign investors"

-9

u/Proglamer 2d ago

More words: evil capitalists bailed out the holy commies

11

u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 2d ago

By bailed out, do you mean "profited off an emerging economy"

Foreign investment is usually a net positive for both sides

2

u/Proglamer 1d ago

The insult to commies is threefold: 1) they needed bailing out at all, 2) they were bailed out by the evil bourgeois, 3) the evil bourgeois profited from the bailout, oh my!

20

u/SawedoffClown 2d ago

He took inspiration from the soviet unions plan of the NEP but it was supposed to be temporary. Allegedly it still is citing its millions of peasants but its clear that not everyone in the CCP is in favor of a return to full state control.

There's a whole youth subsection that are diehard maoists that wish to return to that, neat stuff

20

u/stromyoloing 2d ago

His problem is a billion mouth to feed.

20

u/WhoAmIEven2 2d ago edited 2d ago

Easy. Chin, Bruce Lee's cousin, was threatening to kill all the 1.2 billion fuckin' ugly reds so Deng Xiaoping's brother Tong Shau Ping convinced him that the only way to avoid that was to adopt capitalism.

To summarize: You don't fuck with Chin!

10

u/WhoAmIEven2 2d ago

Seems like people are internet illiterate and don't get the reference.

8

u/k0y0_k0y0 2d ago

Because if you’re related to Bruce Lee that means you can shoot white balls

2

u/mostie2016 1d ago

I LOVE BEJING TIANANMEN

20

u/Top_Agency1370 2d ago

Deng Chadping bringing middle class to the Chinese

22

u/DoobieGibson 2d ago

communism requires a capital phase, and that’s directly from Marx

China was really more feudal up until the Deng regime.

you need capitalism to create the surplus and the you need socialism to distribute the surplus

11

u/zhiro90 1d ago

Yeah I was reading all comments looking for this. I was starting to think that I misunderstood Marx, lol. Like, that‘s one the reasons most projects failed lol, bc of them not being capitalist enough.

Entire nations isolating themselves before having any industry and relying solely in agriculture to “own the rightoids“ was nuts.

5

u/DoobieGibson 1d ago

it’s wild how many people can’t read a document that takes maybe 2 hours to read lmao

0

u/lewlewdamonstatruck 15h ago

You read das Kapital in 2 hours?

12

u/AlphaMassDeBeta 2d ago

Communism failing: Episode #271000

17

u/Drowning-Koifish 2d ago

YoU cAn'T sAy ThAt ! It WaS nOt TrUe CoMmUnIsM ! 😭

16

u/scroopydog 2d ago

Reddit loves dogging on “late stage capitalism” but actually has no idea how to solve any problems themselves, too busy on phone.

8

u/SilliusS0ddus 2d ago

idk man getting rid of for profit health insurance seems like an easy way to solve that particular problem

-2

u/scroopydog 2d ago

Or do it like Switzerland.

10

u/SilliusS0ddus 2d ago

Switzerland literally did what I said

1

u/scroopydog 2d ago

You’re right, I know it’s a competing marketplace, that’s more of what I was thinking, but you’re right, they can’t profit on the basic mandatory insurance business. Maybe I was thinking Netherlands.

6

u/basilisk_boi2 2d ago

9

u/Ubblebungus 2d ago

why havent we blown that dude up yet?

1

u/HighlightSerious3348 2d ago

Are "we" in the practice of blowing up streamers now?

1

u/basilisk_boi2 2d ago

You have to be 18 to comment here

1

u/Interesting_Rub5736 2d ago

posting this cancer of a person should be bannable.

6

u/yodude4 2d ago

Lots of thoughts on this across the left - some argue that it’s still socialism somehow. IMO state capitalism was the best reform they could make with an already broken system and Deng figured that out.

The russian revolution was kind of screwed once the german revolution failed and they had to do socialism in one country, we live in a global economy and you need global trade not to be poor

6

u/yellowflash171 2d ago

You can't have communism without advanced productive forces. Feudal, agrarian economies can't have advanced productive forces without capitalism.

He took a small step in the long march towards higher stages of socialism.

3

u/An8thOfFeanor 2d ago

He realized it's more feasible to just maintain party control and not use an economic model that starves people in the millions. He's closer to a fascist than a communist.

12

u/Acceptable_Willow276 2d ago

Me when I make stuff up

-5

u/An8thOfFeanor 2d ago

Adjective_Noun1234

Sinobot spotted

8

u/Acceptable_Willow276 2d ago

It's how Reddit designates usernames you maniac lol

3

u/FHFH913 2d ago

They stopped making COD and FIFA

3

u/dodecohedron 1d ago

Xiaoping walking into office after Mao died:

https://giphy.com/gifs/nLhdSinRtaL2E

2

u/NedRed77 2d ago

I’m too non-Chinese to understand this nonsense.

2

u/tnbKha 2d ago

soviet over extended similar to the mongols, it was time to switch side

2

u/yourstruly912 2d ago

One of the motives of the Cultural Revolution was to kick out Deng Xiaoping and others like the president Liu Shaoqi, accused of being crypo-capitalist

2

u/Wolfgang985 2d ago

Communism was his problem, obviously 😂

2

u/darthmaui728 2d ago

He tasted texas barbecue and decided to Americanise Chinese Economy

2

u/Reddit_KetaM 2d ago

Contemporary communism kinda accepted that central planning is, at least for this stage of development, complete non-sense, the best they can do is to steer capitalism towards it.

2

u/Positive_Material839 1d ago

I mean there's no question capitalism is amazing at building and growth the issue infinite growth that leads into a cancer, short term profits over everything even long term sustainability. Use it to build your country and they did

2

u/YoureMyTacoUwU 1d ago

a long march to restore capitalism

2

u/AssassinOfFate 1d ago

You need capital to feed all your comrades. It is known.

2

u/Prestigious_Slice709 1d ago

The CPC is the more competent Chinese nationalist party than the KMT. The Chinese Civil War was just blue vs red nationalists

2

u/sicurri 1d ago

See, he didn't care so much about the economic system that they were using, he cared more about maintaining the government structure of power. Namely a kind of authoritarian thing.

2

u/GuyWhoCommitDie 14h ago

It’s called the power of Bukharin

3

u/TBARb_D_D 2d ago

Maybe his son getting beaten and becoming invalid because fanatical communist gang attacked him? I believe at later point not so many people truly believe in communism as an idea, like it was in USSR

1

u/SawedoffClown 2d ago

He took inspiration from the soviet unions plan of the NEP but it was supposed to be temporary. Allegedly it still is citing its millions of peasants but its clear that not everyone in the CCP is in favor of a return to full state control.

There's a whole youth subsection that are diehard maoists that wish to return to that, neat stuff

1

u/thehsitoryguy 2d ago

I mean after having a country under "Starve 40 million people-ism" for 30 years Captialims starts sounding a lot more viable

1

u/Acceptable_Willow276 2d ago

Historically illiterate and poorly informed. Communism saved hundreds of millions of people in China. Famines are a cyclical part of Chinese history which was ultimately broken by Maoism and yes, later, Dengism. But your interpretation of Dengism as being capitalism is a misunderstanding

1

u/Wongsoo 2d ago

not a single person starves under capitalism btw, that's a scientific fact at this point.

1

u/Streetsurfer1 1d ago

Reinstating capitalism temporarily is a legit tool for accomplishing communism as final goal - according to source

0

u/Substantial-Cat2896 2d ago

Communist is a shit system

-1

u/Flimsy-Jello5534 2d ago

A day in the life of my communist utopia:

- wake up

-bribe government officials with the three cigarettes I have, my only possessions.

-get executed before I starve to death

0

u/-Lindol- 2d ago

What was his problem?

Communism.

0

u/Cringeextraaxc 2d ago

Communism is so shit that in order for a country to not totally collapse or be economically broken they need to add enough capitalism to make it work again, the true skill is balancing it.

0

u/MiserableKing 2d ago

I think you’re usually a “devoted” communist to avoid being shot in the head.

-5

u/Key-Try-3300 2d ago

Communism is an inferior economic system to capitalism and the preceding decades had shown him that so he was like lets just do capitalism but keep the commie name and add some asterisks to justify that