Instigator / Pro
0
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1455

China and Vietnam are still Socialist Nations

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Nemiroff
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

"Although the number of employees of private enterprises has overtaken the number of employees of state- and collectively-owned companies, the basic economic agenda is set by the state. Private production is encouraged by the state only because it contributes to modernisation, technological development and employment. While some Marxists may insist that markets can have no place under socialism, it’s difficult to reconcile such a view with Marx’s own view of socialism as a transitional stage on the road to communism. China has proven in reality that it can use (heavily regulated) market mechanisms in order to more rapidly develop the productive forces and improve the living standards of its people." https://www.invent-the-future.org/2018/10/is-china-still-socialist/

-->
@billbatard

What is more important: that they call themselves socialist? Or that they actually act socialist?

Hint: words are cheap, actions matter.

if socialists are in charge of a one party state thats proof enough they are socialist if they are in control and still have socialist values nothing else matters

Half way through voting bump

Any dictator can run a command economy. Just think of the kings of middle ages. They didnt regulate the economy (cause there wasnt much economy), but they could. They could claim all the money and property as theirs. They can even claim people or their lives. The whole nation belongs to them. State ownership =/= public ownership in all cases.

Yes, they are certainly command economies.
They dont have public ownership or equality so they still arent socialist. Decisions are made for them, not by them. Therefore not socialist.

both china and Vietnam have significant state industryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_Vietnam

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/state-owned-enterprises-are-hard-habit-china-doesnt-want-break

-->
@billbatard

"he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim"
not sure what this means.

as for the rest of your post, yes. Also I believe any form of socialism invented by and in order to support a dictator with zero public input is not a legitimate socialist theory. Its a dictatorship with public ownership of nothing. It is a propaganda lie to placate the public.

Just because you have a command economy doesn't mean the public has any control over it. And if the public does not control the means of production, you dont have socialism. Public ownership is the key defining characteristic of socialism. If that is missing, its not socialism. Everything else is irrelevant.

-->
@Nemiroff

he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim , in your words phases of socialism were "invented' not by mao but by the father of communism MARX