based
Attract global capital investment without creating a directly antagonizing relationship with its engagement with capitalism within its current socialist market economy. Billionaires are subservient to the communist party is what largely differentiates this system, and they also are not exactly free to do whatever they want with their wealth either.
Attract global capital investment without creating a directly antagonizing relationship with its engagement with capitalism
This is fantasy. You can’t “engage with” capitalIsm without engaging with the downsides of capitalism. You don’t have capitalism without class antagonism, capitalism is itself a set of antagonistic relationships.
Like your defense of the reinstatement of capitalism in China would be much more convincing if there was some acknowledgement of the risks of that strategy, rather than pretending like capitalism becomes magically not antagonistic when it’s regulated by the CCP. Why bother transitioning to socialism if that’s the case?
Yea, they would seem like obvious concerns, and yet in the post I’m responding to:
Attract global capital investment without creating a directly antagonizing relationship with its engagement with capitalism
i mean the lack of such reform and integration would have probably lead to the complete collapse of the cpc and the end of prc so i would say the engagement was necessary and objectively put china in a much better position in the end. the necessity of this to develop rapidly and compete with western capitalist interests and not get overrun by them is apparent enough. theres certainly contradictions and its obviously something many people in china still want to resolve but what i said is the reason for it, which simply put is that it favors the very real material gains of the country. whether or not you agree or think its a good strategy is a different story i guess.
also i think you misunderstood what i said. i meant theyre not creating open antagonism as in against capitalist elements and people engaging in them by just seizing all their wealth or something (which they still do sometimes). but theyre not strictly threatening and scaring off capitalist investment and engagement per say
the necessity of this to develop rapidly and compete with western capitalist interests
This ignores that it’s entirely possible to develop under a planned economy. It’s not a necessity to embrace capitalism to get development especially as we’re at/past the end of global capitalism as a force that can develop the productive forces.
Also saying that the pros outweigh the cons is not to say the cons don’t exist. Among the cons of capitalism is the exploitation of workers (as a feature, really), and surely you explicitly take this into account?
