5 ms·

Based on what sources do you make your claims, and what makes you so sure Mahbubani is wrong? Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, have

Based on what sources do you make your claims, and what makes you so sure Mahbubani is wrong? Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. 80% of the businesses in China are privately owned, and people have private property. Though socialist elements still exist; my wife's grandparents recently received new houses from the government, as reimbursement for tearing down their old houses (which were in much worse shape than the new ones) for redeveloping the land. As Mahbubani says, the CCP is more accurately described as the Chinese Civilization Party.

aww_dang 6y ago
Yes, 'private' enterprises that are required to have party members in positions of control. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  The larger ones do. Smaller ones don't. And for sure, houses are not owned by the government. The land is, although that is not a uniquely communist thing: in Amsterdam, all land is owned by the city government. But that really has got nothing to do with ownership. It has got to do with national security, and ensuring that the company does not conflict with public interests. Whether you agree with such reasons is another matter: the point is that it's not about ownership.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    A distinction without a difference. Party affiliation is a requirement before a business can even become large. Perhaps you can call them private in the nominal sense. It is reminiscent of the National Socialist's command economy. Private individuals may own a company on paper, but the party will dictate what is done with it. Look at the case of Jack Ma.
vxNsr 6y ago
> Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. Right, but communism has never been communism where it has been tried, that's the paradox of communism. trying to continually redefine the term to fit your narrative to that it's still pure is a boring exercise in bike-shedding.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  I don't know where you got the idea from that I'm 'redefining' communism. Communism refers to an economic system, where one of the properties is that everything is state owned. And that is no longer true. Communism also refers to the Soviet model, and China is no longer using that. If I say that today's China's mostly capitalist system is a new form of communism, then you would be right than I am redefining it. So I am very confused by what you mean when you accuse me of redefining communism. It seems more like that you are redefining communism to mean whatever system China is using today.
mike_hearn 6y ago
Hello FBW :) Chinese Civilization Party might be over-doing it a bit, don't you think? Unless you use a circular definition that Chinese civilization is whatever the CCP says it is. Normally the meaning of civilization is defined by the people in it, rather than via edict. The notion of state ownership vs private property is indeed more capitalist, as long as it's actually meaningful. For private property to mean something, it must mean that the government can't or won't override your choices about how that property is to be used. In China there's a lot of private businesses and private property, but the government is still very willing to control the details of how that property is used, for example, by insisting that party members are installed in powerful positions when the company becomes important, or restrictive capital controls, or requiring a wide variety of licenses to do business. The control is still there, it's just done via different bureaucratic means than "state ownership". For instance a company won't remain your private property for long if you criticise the government, or allow other people to criticise the government. It's a rather weak notion of private property.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  Hey Mike! Kishore coined the term as a way to clear up people’s misunderstanding of what the CCP is. His point is that people misread the CCP’s goal as advancing communism world wide, whereas in actuality its goal is to advance the interests of the Chinese nation. This misread results in nonsensical China policy, which is why he promotes the term, to help people deal with China as it is and not what people think China is. As for control of private property: interventions are possible, for sure. But I am not sure whether the existence of interventions is a meaningful point in this discussion. Here in the Netherlands there are a ton of interventions too. I can’t even park a bike on my own parking lot without getting into trouble! Yet nobody will argue that private property in the Netherlands is weak. The fact is that for the most part, property in China really is private. That large companies have to cede some control is an exception to the rule, because most companies are not large.

aww_dang 6y ago

Yes, 'private' enterprises that are required to have party members in positions of control. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...

FooBarWidget 6y ago
The larger ones do. Smaller ones don't. And for sure, houses are not owned by the government. The land is, although that is not a uniquely communist thing: in Amsterdam, all land is owned by the city government. But that really has got nothing to do with ownership. It has got to do with national security, and ensuring that the company does not conflict with public interests. Whether you agree with such reasons is another matter: the point is that it's not about ownership.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  A distinction without a difference. Party affiliation is a requirement before a business can even become large. Perhaps you can call them private in the nominal sense. It is reminiscent of the National Socialist's command economy. Private individuals may own a company on paper, but the party will dictate what is done with it. Look at the case of Jack Ma.

vxNsr 6y ago

> Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. Right, but communism has never been communism where it has been tried, that's the paradox of communism. trying to continually redefine the term to fit your narrative to that it's still pure is a boring exercise in bike-shedding.

FooBarWidget 6y ago
I don't know where you got the idea from that I'm 'redefining' communism. Communism refers to an economic system, where one of the properties is that everything is state owned. And that is no longer true. Communism also refers to the Soviet model, and China is no longer using that. If I say that today's China's mostly capitalist system is a new form of communism, then you would be right than I am redefining it. So I am very confused by what you mean when you accuse me of redefining communism. It seems more like that you are redefining communism to mean whatever system China is using today.

mike_hearn 6y ago

Hello FBW :) Chinese Civilization Party might be over-doing it a bit, don't you think? Unless you use a circular definition that Chinese civilization is whatever the CCP says it is. Normally the meaning of civilization is defined by the people in it, rather than via edict. The notion of state ownership vs private property is indeed more capitalist, as long as it's actually meaningful. For private property to mean something, it must mean that the government can't or won't override your choices about how that property is to be used. In China there's a lot of private businesses and private property, but the government is still very willing to control the details of how that property is used, for example, by insisting that party members are installed in powerful positions when the company becomes important, or restrictive capital controls, or requiring a wide variety of licenses to do business. The control is still there, it's just done via different bureaucratic means than "state ownership". For instance a company won't remain your private property for long if you criticise the government, or allow other people to criticise the government. It's a rather weak notion of private property.

FooBarWidget 6y ago
Hey Mike! Kishore coined the term as a way to clear up people’s misunderstanding of what the CCP is. His point is that people misread the CCP’s goal as advancing communism world wide, whereas in actuality its goal is to advance the interests of the Chinese nation. This misread results in nonsensical China policy, which is why he promotes the term, to help people deal with China as it is and not what people think China is. As for control of private property: interventions are possible, for sure. But I am not sure whether the existence of interventions is a meaningful point in this discussion. Here in the Netherlands there are a ton of interventions too. I can’t even park a bike on my own parking lot without getting into trouble! Yet nobody will argue that private property in the Netherlands is weak. The fact is that for the most part, property in China really is private. That large companies have to cede some control is an exception to the rule, because most companies are not large.