Danyang county, making 50% of global eyeglass lenses, introduces semiconductor lithography to produce nano-structured lenses as thin as 2mm even for 1500-degree prescriptions.
Right. I asked you if you’ve been to China recently and you said “no”. Kind of ironic that you’re now telling me to read all these links in order to know how China works.
You’re right, didn’t have my glasses on and I read otherwise.
Then I would say that I can’t believe that someone who has been to China recently and has seen the rampant inequality there, almost on par with that in the US, could call it “socialist” by any metric.
Communists can correctly identify China as socialist because we understand that public ownership is the principal aspect of its economy, and that it has a dictatorship of the proletariat. Inequality exists because China is socialist, not even at an advanced stage of socialism or communism yet.
I kind of disagree. Because years ago, when I was part of a union in Europe, many of those who called themselves socialists didn’t quite understand what it meant.
What do you believe socialism means, and where did this understanding come from, if it leads you to believe a country where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialist?
I never had an issue with the theory of the matter, but how it is implemented in China.
Calling China a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is… almost funny, at least from the perspective of someone who has seen it in person. A single party state where there’s very clearly an oligarchy of party card bearers who own the means of production, live in luxury mansions, are driven around in Rolls Royces, their kids are sent to exclusive schools in Europe… doesn’t scream “socialist” to me.
Right. I asked you if you’ve been to China recently and you said “no”. Kind of ironic that you’re now telling me to read all these links in order to know how China works.
reading comprehension is really not your forte is it?
You’re right, didn’t have my glasses on and I read otherwise.
Then I would say that I can’t believe that someone who has been to China recently and has seen the rampant inequality there, almost on par with that in the US, could call it “socialist” by any metric.
Communists can correctly identify China as socialist because we understand that public ownership is the principal aspect of its economy, and that it has a dictatorship of the proletariat. Inequality exists because China is socialist, not even at an advanced stage of socialism or communism yet.
Being socialist isn’t required to understand what socialism is.
No, but it certainly helps. Those who want socialism tend to be the most informed on what it is and how it works.
I kind of disagree. Because years ago, when I was part of a union in Europe, many of those who called themselves socialists didn’t quite understand what it meant.
What do you believe socialism means, and where did this understanding come from, if it leads you to believe a country where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialist?
I never had an issue with the theory of the matter, but how it is implemented in China.
Calling China a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is… almost funny, at least from the perspective of someone who has seen it in person. A single party state where there’s very clearly an oligarchy of party card bearers who own the means of production, live in luxury mansions, are driven around in Rolls Royces, their kids are sent to exclusive schools in Europe… doesn’t scream “socialist” to me.
Thanks for further clarifying you don’t understand what socialism actually is.