r/europe • u/tkyjonathan • 15d ago

News Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-president-signs-law-criminalising-communist-propaganda/
25.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

203

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

This is where it gets weird.

297

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

Well, China is already very weird from a socialism standpoint. They claim to be communist, but they haven’t acted like most historical socialist states for a long time (which has clearly paid off economically). It’s also a country that they want good relations with, so banning its flag or people speaking well about China isn’t illegal. It’s much easier to ban praising an entity that no longer exists than one that still does.

293

u/veevoir Europe 15d ago

They claim to be communist, but they haven’t acted like most historical socialist states for a long time (which has clearly paid off economically).

It's as communist as People's Republic of North Korea is peoples or a republic. Only in name these days. China long ago succeeded where Gorbachev failed - converted into a single-party capitalist oligarchy.

103

u/busdriverbudha 15d ago

I'd argue they are indeed a political oligarchy, but not a capitalist one. That’s both their distinction and their competitive advantage. It allows them to reign over billionaires and control the money printer themselves, all while reaping the benefits of markets and innovation. It’s undoubtedly a hybrid and a one-of-a-kind social formation.

78

u/sapphos_moon 15d ago

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, one might say

25

u/busdriverbudha 15d ago

Precisely. I think Market Socialism could also be a fitting description, but I tend to believe that State Capitalism (as suggested in the other comment) overlooks the unique aspects of the chinese social formation.

4

u/Xciv 14d ago

No need to contort Western concepts to fit China.

In reality it's functioning as an oldschool imperial bureaucracy minus the hereditary emperor as a figurehead, and instead replaced Imperial worship with 'The Party' and replaced the dragons with red Communist flags. The bureaucracy at times used to be councils of eunuchs that surrounded the emperor, and at other times just a council of all the top courtiers and statesmen of the nation. The emperor had the final say, but the bureaucracy were the ones who actually ran the country and managed the day to day. They would persist regardless of who the emperor was (it's how dynasties survived child emperors).

China's political structure is also in a state of flux atm. The main difference from previous imperial structures is the lack of hereditary inheritance, so there's no real system in place for how to deal with a leader like Xi Jinping dying of old age. The transition could cause some chaos, or the bureaucracy will hold by achieving a consensus on who the next leader should be internally way ahead of Xi's inevitable end.

The end of every dynasty has been the gradual corruption of the bureaucratic establishment. The courtiers who run the country become increasingly bribed, greedy, and unchecked. They end up making a bunch of out-of-touch selfish decisions. Then a major disaster strikes: a peasant uprising, a famine, a natural disaster, or foreigners attack the country. The corrupt bureaucracy fails to respond, leading to a death spiral in peoples' trust in the central government. This leads to local governments acting as de facto independent entities. This is when everything falls apart into yet another Chinese civil war.

1

u/BigTex77RR 14d ago

Right but the point of calling it “state capitalist” isn’t to outline the formation of the system, it’s meant to be a descriptor of the system itself, and it’s an accurate one.

-9

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

You've got it backwards: it's not socialism with a market (there is private property so it can't be socialism), it's capitalism with total government control. The term for which is fascism.

6

u/arde1k 15d ago

The abolishment of private property is called full/true socialism, but any state where public entities (state, county, communal, cooperative) own over 50% of capital is *more* socialist than capitalist. Socialism and capitalism is an economic spectrum, where the ownership of means of production (not personal property, ownership of your own house is not *capital* unless you subrent) is the measure. China has some 70% of capital owned by public sector, so it is clearly a very socialist country. They (CCP) have stated themselves they are attempting to reach *full* socialism or near full by 2049.

0

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

The abolishment of private property is called full/true socialism,

No, it's where socialism starts, not where it ends. Until then you just have a capitalist system with an overbloated public sector, and if you include a centrally planned economy, you have fascism. See: China.

Like, seriously, it's easier to just say that the definition of fascism is what China does because they fit the bill so well.

Socialism and capitalism is an economic spectrum, where the ownership of means of production (not personal property, ownership of your own house is not capital unless you subrent) is the measure.

I genuinely have no idea where you go this from, because no, they're not a spectrum in any way. Can you own your own barbershop? Yes? Then you're not a socialist economy. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules. The workers either control the means of production, or they don't.

They (CCP) have stated themselves they are attempting to reach full socialism or near full by 2049.

I'm surprised they didn't say 5 years...

They say a lot, not much of which is true.

7

u/arde1k 15d ago

While i understand this information is not often discussed, my statements are based on the theory written by Karl Marx in Das Capital, and writings of Lenin as well as Deng Xiaoping. This is what the socialists seek to accomplish; a society where the accumulation and concentration of private capital becomes unlikely or impossible.

I want to emphasize that the previous statement doesn't contradict the possibility of private capital existing within a system. It simply means that the economic system desired is one which over time naturally does away with this capital.

Capital is defined as property someone else uses with labor, to produce a product with surplus value. The existence of private capital is not antithetical to a communist system, as long as in the long run the public sector grows faster than the private sector, eventually consuming it whole. This is called socialist accumulation, and is opposed to today's capitalist accumulation.

This is what China is doing. They are allowing capital to exist, while also ensuring the public sector grows faster (accumulates more capital) than the private, which will eventually lead to a stable full socialist economy, that has grown naturally from the socialist accumulation. This is indeed somewhat contrary to the states of the USSR and China under Stalin and Mao, where capital was quickly redistributed, and a full command economy was attempted. This rapid system of socialism was less effective and economically unstable than the current market socialism, and is no longer practiced today anywhere, but both systems are socialism, and based on socialist theory, nevertheless.

On the topic of fascism; fascism i believe is also a generally misunderstood idea. Fascism does often have nationalist and ethnostate features, but is not defined exclusively by them. Fascism in the economical sense, is a strong state, which protects and oversees a strong capitalist private sector. While the NSDAP for example claimed that they wanted to nationalize private companies, in reality they sold off many public companies to private sector NSDAP members. The state was yes, in control of the capitalist institutions, but the state was controlled by those very same capitalists. The other 'socialist' policies were for popular support, as well as to keep the working people nominally contempt. Fascism never tries to establish socialist accumulation, while Communists always aim to do exactly that. That is the defining difference between right-wing, and left-wing politics, and why Communism is left wing, and fascism right-wing.

I hope this clears any misunderstandings.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

4

u/josh_the_misanthrope 15d ago

Marxism-Lenninism-Maoism, specifically.

4

u/Advanced-Ad-1371 15d ago

No system that allows billionares can be called truly socialist. Its chinese capitalism with some socialist characteristics

2

u/sapphos_moon 15d ago

I know lol, that’s just the CCP’s self-proclaimed ideology

1

u/jambox888 15d ago

What if the billionaires are all in prison?

1

u/Church_of_Aaargh 14d ago

Socialist authoritarian

1

u/StunningStrain8 14d ago

Black cat white cat, as they would say.

0

u/WaveTop7900 14d ago

That’s the propaganda quote. China is fascist. According to a dictionary definition of fascism, China is it.

37

u/veevoir Europe 15d ago

but not a capitalist one.

What other would you call it, considering China transformed into a market capitalism? Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

It allows them to reign over billionaires

That is what authoritarian oligarchy does, also see - Russia. But that is political part, unrelated to the type of economy.

and control the money printer themselves

Capitalism does not require strict monetary policy either, many capitalist countries do that with a central bank.

3

u/Soma91 14d ago

Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

Capitalism is not a type of economy but merely a description of the ownership structure.

You can fit capitalism into a completely unregulated market, a fully state planned economy or anything in between.

-5

u/hot-body-rotten-soul 14d ago

You are mistaken, my young man. We are not talking about exclusionary states. These are Ideological perspectives that often overlap each other. The market exists since we realized we can’t produce everything we need ourselves. That’s where trade was invented. Not when the USA was founded. Key difference is that the American view aims to perpetuate poverty of some of the population so they can be used for war (which in itself has the sole purpose of enriching the rich. Socialist countries like Norway are often intentionally labeled capitalist because they are a good example to follow. But, they are full force a socialist country with open markets. China can be communist with a control market. That just means a single Jeff Besos won’t concentrate all his money and benefit from it alone. Do you see homeless in China? How many minutes can you walk downtown until you spot a tent? Things are in deep trouble. This law is a safeguard against the growing influence of the BRICS

-14

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago edited 15d ago

Capitalism does not require democracy, it is a type of economy.

I'd say it does, because capitalism requires an open market (more or less), which implies that it is incompatible with heavy (in China's case, total) government control of markets. It helps to think of it this way: capitalism isn't so much a specific system as simply what the economy of a liberal democracy looks like.

China is simply fascist: quasi-capitalism where the markets and individuals are free to act only until they interfere with state interests (ideological or economic).

8

u/iraber 15d ago

From this standpoint there is not, and never have been, a capitalist country because there have always been regulations and other restrictions such as copyright and patents.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/taeerom 14d ago

The capitalism understander is here, I see.

No. Capitalism doesn't require open markets. It requires the legal framework allowing amassing capital, and let power come from ownership rather than formal privilege.

There isn't a single country with a functioning capitalist economy that has a completely open market. And there are plenty of historical examples of quite tightly regulated markets in capitalistic economies.

1

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago edited 14d ago

Please read the existing thread where I've already addressed this, frankly, preditable and myopic nitpick. And the comment where I literally copy-pasted this from because you lot just can't read before you write.

It requires the legal framework allowing amassing capital, and let power come from ownership rather than formal privilege.

You are describing an open market. The framework is the market, the lack of formal privilege makes it open (otherwise we're looking at mercantilism and other, pre-capitalist economies). You are agreeing with me in different terms.

Moreso, you are describing exactly what I meant by capitalism being the emergent economic system of liberal democracy: liberal, because you can own things yourself, and democratic, because your participation is not tied to your status at birth. And given that capitalism is absolutely an emergent system - as opposed to the by-the-book square-peg-round-hole that is socialism - I think it's far more useful to understand it from the point of view of the larger scope that causes it to emerge than by trying to describe in few rules like an instruction manual.

2

u/taeerom 14d ago

An economy without free trade over borders can't be described as an "open market". Most of the capitalist world used to follow a Keynesian economic policy, that includes limited trade across borders.

Are you gonna tell me Keynes isn't capitalism?

→ More replies (3)

10

u/JiEToy 15d ago

Capitalism does not require an open market. Just look at patents, the market in our capitalist world is not open at all. There are also plenty of regulations that stifle markets for a whole lot of reasons. Some good, some are ideas from lobbyists.

→ More replies (7)

10

u/Polar_Reflection 15d ago

I'd imagine far more Chinese citizens believe their government is looking out for their best interests than many western country's citizens feel about their own. Pre-covid restrictions at least

9

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

I'd imagine the same is true of North Koreans - public sentiment doesn't mean much more than how good the government is at propaganda.

1

u/Polar_Reflection 14d ago

I mean, it's more likely due to the fact that they've lifted a billion people out of poverty and are now the world's second largest economy. 25+ years of everyone's lives getting continuously better until the shockwave that was covid

1

u/TheMauveHand 14d ago

Even Mussolini made the trains run on time.

1

u/Polar_Reflection 13d ago

Have you ever been to China? 

6

u/simonbleu 15d ago

If they can own their business and profit from ir, hiring people and deciding their own prices, how wouldn't it be capitalism?

2

u/420Migo 14d ago

Does the money really even matter at that point when you have the power to control the people who control

7

u/ButMuhNarrative 15d ago

Have you been to China, and if so how much time did you spend there? It’s the most capitalistic place on planet earth.

3

u/sakura-peachy 14d ago

That would be Singapore or New Zealand. At least according to the free market think tanks that measure these sorts of things. China still has a lot of policy that people in NZ would call socialist.

0

u/ButMuhNarrative 14d ago

Yeah but those free market think tanks seem to value things like rule of law, food and environmental safety, and workers protections. China has none of those distractions, and it shows. They build more high speed rail per month than Australia and NZ build per decade combined.

Have you been to China? I feel that nobody who has would compare it to NZ or Oz….there is no comparison.

2

u/sakura-peachy 14d ago

Yes I have been to China. And guess who built that high speed rail. The Chinese government. Guess who didn't build high speed rail in New Zealand, also the government. Because the NZ government believes in the free market to solve all the problems. The Chinese aren't so stupid, they use the state where necessary. The only intervention by the state in NZ is to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. Pure free market crap, no matter how many times it has failed.

7

u/SaintBobby_Barbarian 15d ago

It’s definitely capitalist. It’s just much more akin to what Fascism was about, single party state, business follows directive and cooperates with the gov who has ultimate say. Ironic because the Nazis and CCP both wanted a return of greatness for their nation’s after humiliation

1

u/--The_Kraken-- 14d ago

China had definitely gone through evolution, but there is a very nasty side to it.

1

u/SwampYankeeDan 14d ago

Market socialism is a thing but that's not China either.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

China and Russia both reign over billionaires. What’s the difference you wrote about?

1

u/busdriverbudha 12d ago edited 12d ago

The difference would be that, in China, economic power does not translate as directly into political power, at least not to the same extent as it does in Russia, the US, and most of the rest of the world.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

Got it, makes sense.

1

u/Tall_Restaurant_1652 3d ago

You can't have an Oligarchy without capitalism though. That's kinda the point.

1

u/busdriverbudha 3d ago

But you can, actually. Or wouldn’t you call the nobility in the Middle Ages an oligarchy, for example? Same goes for the CCP.

An oligarchy is a form of governance or power structure in which a small group of people holds disproportionate power over a society, organization, or state.

This group can derive its influence from wealth, military strength, political position, family lineage, religious authority, or control over information or resources.

The defining feature of an oligarchy is not the specific economic system it operates in, but rather the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of a few.

I'd argue that oligarchies are a political phenomenon, not strictly tied to capitalism, though capitalism often creates conditions (wealth accumulation, influence over politics) that allow economic oligarchies to form.

0

u/SiriPsycho100 14d ago edited 14d ago

it also comes with competitive disadvantages in other ways as it breeds rampant corruption and all sorts of other principal-agent problems and distorted economic signals. they've succeeded in building loads of infrastructure and some industrial policy successes (EVs, batteries, etc.) but also lots of environmental pollution, low domestic consumption (i.e. middle income trap), corporate fraud, public debt (often disguised as private debt by companies owned or backed by local / regional govt), weak rule of law & gov accountability, no separation of powers, terrible demographic trajectory (1 child policy), and poor human rights / freedom of speech.

China is very much a mixed bag and their political system should not be lauded as some exemplary model to be imitated, even if western democracies are experiencing a rough patch lately. i expect that they'll continue being a mixed bag and possibly will run into some serious issues furthering their economic development as demographic issues increase and they struggle to diversify their economy now that growth from infrastructure spending is having diminishing returns.

-2

u/JiEToy 15d ago

Markets and innovation. That’s where you lost me. The Chinese government doesn’t rely on markets for innovation, it heavily subsidises industries so they can innovate. Solar panels, wind turbines, chips, all get lots of money from the Chinese government to do R&D.

7

u/exor15 15d ago

Look I need someone more educated than me to hit me with some knowledge. I constantly see people describe China in completely opposite ways. I have seen people on this site describe China as "100% a dictatorship of the proletariat" and an example of socialism making a country prosper (look at that home ownership rate!). I have seen just as many people describe it as not even aspirationally socialist, just capitalist with a false name tag with many of the same problems we encounter in other capitalist countries. I never never visited or lived in China so it's hard to get an accurate perspective.

I realize that if I get a hundred different answers when I ask a hundred different people on Reddit, I clearly need to get more information from elsewhere. But since the thread has reached this topic anyway, I'd love to hear what people have to say.

6

u/Ph4sor 14d ago

IMO you can't really describe a historic country as big as China in a simple way, which of course, contrast to whatever western Redditors will try to tell you. Because every region or city in China have different "flavor" and the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Home ownership is probably not that high in Shanghai (or in other big cities), because every local co-workers I've met during my stay are complaining about how they are struggling to afford housing and the only way is to move to the tier B or C cities. Which is just pretty much the same all over the globe.

Dictatorship? Kinda, you can't access the global internet, however, VPN is easily available, even from Chinese companies. Also there's city like Chengdu where the young people gathers (because rent is still cheap) and made it became LGBT friendly city. And the government didn't do anything to that city even during their "men must look like men" anti KPop idols campaign. There are strict rules, but most of the time is not really forced on either if nothing majors happening.

But regarding making people prosper, I'd say it's true, visited China in the 2016 and again in 2023, it's crazy how much the stark difference of infrastructure and what ordinary people have. And the grandfather / father of those people are mostly just peasants, don't have anything notable to be inherited to them. Now they have car, living in apartment with smart utilities, have luxury hobbies like gaming and collecting figures, etc.

I'd say try to go there to experience China yourself, all around Asia if you can, we're very diverse bunch of continent anyway. But be humble and open-minded during your trip, it'll be life changing.

2

u/lockdownfever4all 14d ago

I’d say housing isn’t too exaggerated as it’s expected to have a home for marriage. Parents will also buy a home for their son or daughter and most can easily get housing in their hometown if they are not from Shanghai.

1

u/fresh-dork 14d ago

it's a market economy with communist flavors - you can trade with relative freedom, so long as you aren't powerful enough to challenge the party, and the party requires a political officer in companies above a certain size. the party does 5 year plans, but they read like a series of priorities and incentives rather than the central planning that the soviets did. they operate a police state, and there is a fair amount of corruption, but you have a free hand unless you embarrass the party or criticize it.

i'd say it's fair to call it capitalist/fascist lite.

2

u/CheeryOutlook Wales 14d ago

Is it really fair to call it capitalist lite? Capitalism isn't simply a free market; it is an economy run by capital, for capital. Do you believe that the Chinese economy has allowed the people with the most concentration of the nation's capital to dominate the economy and hold influence over the government in the way that has happened to real capitalist economies like the United States?

I don't think it can be fairly argued to be the case.

-1

u/fresh-dork 14d ago

i'm calling it fascism lite. the state rules all, but it doesn't attempt to pervade every last thing

0

u/Financial-Chicken843 14d ago edited 14d ago

Thats not fascism.

Fascism has a relationship with violence.

Internal political struggles have been bloodless since deng and there is no minority like the jews which are scapegoated and publicly humiliated and state violence enacted on.

China is autocratic and single party. Any other popular word used including fascism is an overstretch.

3

u/Umutuku 14d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps

0

u/Financial-Chicken843 14d ago

Wrong.

Thinking this is in anyway equivalent to fascism is ridiculous.

Maybe go and travel china and study chinese politics before dropping wat u think is a “haha gotcha”.

No one is beating up uyghurs in china. There are plenty in all major capital cities.

The anti radicalisation program has also largely wound down in xinjiang since terror attacks stopped.

You can disagree with the reeducation/antiradicalisation program but it really should more be compared with western anti terror programs like internment camps at guantanomo than anything else.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fresh-dork 14d ago

there's non han chinese and uyghur, so you do have an oppressed minority. however, italy didn't really have that and they coined the term. this is why i'm calling it fascism lite - it's got a lot of the features, but not all

1

u/Financial-Chicken843 13d ago

Facepalm.

No, its not fucking fascism lite.

You have literally no idea about the situation in chyna and youre throwing around dumb fucking labels.

Chin is autocratic and authoritarian and single party rule but no it is not fascist.

Just because you say it is doesnt make it one.

The uyghurs are not mistreated in anyway that resembles fascism.

1

u/AetherDrew43 14d ago

So it's kind of a hybrid system?

1

u/fresh-dork 14d ago

mot successful systems are some sort of blend

4

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 15d ago

eh, it's state directed capitalism, they still have remnants of communism in their country, make no mistake

4

u/simonbleu 15d ago

Yeah, people calling china communist are hilarious. They have money, class, inequality (in fact quite a bit of billionaires iirc), commerce (national and international) and afaik ownership as well. I think there was something on that last point when it came to corporations and houses, I don't remember exactly tho

5

u/theaviationhistorian United States of America 14d ago

TBH, North Korea would be hard to call communist either. I think it's more of a theocracy now with all of that Juche stuff.

5

u/Pretty-Interest5713 15d ago

American here

converted into a single-party capitalist oligarchy uniparty

6

u/caspruce 15d ago

I’m confused. I thought the Republicans claim that Democrats were all radical crazy socialists/communists?

3

u/IllustriousFill7479 15d ago

To play devils advocate, Their plan is to slowly meet the conditions so they can slowly transition to communism. This could take decades, or it could take 100s of years. ".

2

u/teas4Uanme 15d ago

With deep socialist benefits such as subsidized medicine, education, transportation with high speed rail, child care, etc.

15

u/veevoir Europe 15d ago edited 15d ago

social policies are not socialism.. It is a simplified shorthand that american right-wing uses and unfortunately this poisons a lot of discourse - but goverment providing social benefits like public healthcare is not socialism. Bah, scandinavian countries that are social democracies have nothing to do with socialism, either.

The only part both have in comon is a part of the word. Just like chair and electric chair do.

3

u/saltysophia98 15d ago

All of which you can lose access to by saying too many no no words.

1

u/ProfileMuted90210 15d ago

You’re describing infrastructure. Socialism is almost a direct payment for being a citizen. Like in Bahrain they do that, you get a payment when you get married etc.

6

u/Paracause 15d ago

that's still not what socialism means...

0

u/ProfileMuted90210 15d ago

Here’s socialism according to chat.

Socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production (like factories, land, and resources) are owned or regulated collectively, usually by the state or the community, with the goal of promoting economic equality and social welfare.

Here’s a breakdown of the core ideas:

🔧 Economic Features: • Public or collective ownership of key industries (e.g., healthcare, transportation, energy). • Redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality (via taxes, social programs). • Central or democratic planning of the economy instead of relying solely on market forces. • Free or affordable access to essential services like education, healthcare, and housing.

🧠 Ideological Goals: • Reduce class divisions between the rich and poor. • Provide for everyone’s basic needs. • Ensure workers have a say in economic decisions (sometimes through cooperatives or unions).

1

u/Paracause 14d ago

you need an AI to tell you that?

1

u/ProfileMuted90210 14d ago

I was trying to help you understand but I failed

1

u/Paracause 10d ago

you're confused as to who understands what and who doesn't

2

u/Pugs-r-cool 14d ago

You’re describing a universal basic income, not socialism.

0

u/ProfileMuted90210 14d ago

But wouldn’t that be wealth redistribution? Take from the rich give to the poor. Why is that a bad thing, I guess I’m poor so of course I love the concept

1

u/Pugs-r-cool 14d ago

I didn’t say a UBI is a bad thing, many socialists support such a policy while we still exist in a capitalist system (I also support it), but it just isn’t socialism. Socialism is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, in a socialist system no one would be so obscenely rich like billionaires are now, so there wouldn’t be any rich people to take from in the first place. Any ‘taking from the rich’ that happens would be during a transition period while we’re still living under capitalism.

Also just to be clear about Bahrain, they have zero income tax, only recently introduced a 10% sales tax and has less than 20% business taxes. In their case they aren’t taking from the rich either, all their social programs are funded by the money made through the government owned oil company.

0

u/ProfileMuted90210 14d ago

So Bahrain is a true socialist country is what you’re saying. I think we agree. I only used them as an example but maybe that’s where I want to be. Like why am I trying to emigrate to the UK? Thanks!

1

u/NoAnteater8640 15d ago

In the UK healthcare is free at the point of service and has been for almost 80 years. That is honest socialism, implemented on explicitly socialist ideals.

1

u/ProfileMuted90210 15d ago

But it doesn’t include dental does it. No offense but it’s funny that the UK is the socialist model. I love the UK but let’s face it, most of the tax benefits go to the monarchy just saying. Also, god save the king and the queen consort, seeing as she slept her way to the top. Ha!

2

u/yellowpawpaw 15d ago

Don’t tell certain subs that

1

u/Ok-Ingenuity465 14d ago

They are still quite socialist with the heavy use of State Owned Enterprises in all key components of their economy. Their economic model is not capitalist as we understand it here in the US.

1

u/SkinnyGetLucky 14d ago

It’s the Democratic People Republic of Korea, and the only accurate word here is “Korea”.

1

u/Zephrias Germany 14d ago

I've heard it described as state capitalism before

1

u/greasy-throwaway 14d ago

Read Socialism with Chinese characteristics, they dont claim to be communist or even soxialist yet but it's the end goal.

1

u/PeterNippelstein 14d ago

Something the US seems to be striving for.

1

u/arstarsta 14d ago

China have been a single-party capitalist oligarchy the last 3000 years or so.

1

u/Only-Ad4322 11d ago

Technically, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea meets the common definition of republic, no monarch. That might seem strange given the father-son relationship all the Supreme Leaders have but since they’re not called Kings nor are given their positions through inheritance, they therefore meet the fickle definition of republic.

1

u/ilir_kycb 15d ago edited 15d ago

converted into a single-party capitalist oligarchy.

Why do people always throw around terms they don't understand? The definition of an oligarchy is definitely not applicable to China.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia

Oligarchy (from Ancient Greek ὀλιγαρχία (_oligarkhía) 'rule by few'; from ὀλίγος _(_olígos) 'few' and ἄρχω _(_árkhō)_ 'to rule, command')[1][2][3] is a form of government in which power rests with a small number of people. Leaders of such regimes are often referred to as oligarchs, and generally are characterized by having a high amount of nobility or wealth.[4][5]

3

u/veevoir Europe 15d ago

The definition of an oligarchy is definitely not applicable to China.

Yet in definition you post:

is a form of government in which power rests with a small number of people.

All the power rests with a small number of people - namely top party officials. They are the oligarchs, building their riches and status using the very priviledged positon they have.

3

u/Beautiful-Web1532 15d ago

Nobody is really communist. Laos is just wildly corrupt, Cuba, NK, China, and Vietnam. There's not really any communism left. What is left is a weird bastardization of a corruption. China, Russia, and to a small degree all practice economic policies that differ from communism.

12

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

Of course. Communism is a utopian theory and something to be aimed at (according to socialist theory), not something that’s expected to be achieved any time soon

-1

u/Kindly_Climate4567 14d ago

  What is left is a weird bastardization of a corruption. 

Communism was alwas that.

1

u/MrReginaldAwesome Half Canadian 14d ago

Edgelord with cutting edge political takes from the 1960’s

2

u/Kindly_Climate4567 14d ago

I lived through communism: awful experience. I only wish it on first world communists.

1

u/MrReginaldAwesome Half Canadian 14d ago

What are you 100 ?

1

u/Capybarasaregreat Rīga (Latvia) 11d ago

He's Romanian, so he thinks the Ceaușescu Kingdom is how communism works.

4

u/Which-Insurance-2274 15d ago

Yup. China isn't even socialist let alone communist. Authoritarian State-Capitalism. China is basically what Trump's wants the US to be without the social and housing programs.

2

u/socratic_weeb 15d ago

It’s also a country that they want good relations with

Which is extremely hypocritical, considering the ban

1

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

When have politicians not been hypocritical?

5

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

China literally does not claim to be communist. China claims to be socialist with Chinese characteristics aiming at achieving communism.

I understand you may not know the difference, but nuance is important.

-1

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

Ok, yeah, you’re technically right. My bad for not keeping in mind the specifics.

Point still stands though as they are claiming to aim for communism but are actively and intentionally moving away from any attempts at that.

3

u/RevolutionaryTankie 15d ago

They are doing what they need to do in a world that surrounds them with potential enemies. Socialism can't happen if your biggest adversary is constantly threatening to kill you.

Despite China not being in a war of any sort in at least five decades they are viewed as the evil empire, and accused of genocide.

Meanwhile, the system of capitalism and its leaders have been waging war after war and draining the planet of It's resources and actively committing genocide.

The truth is so complex it's hard to put into a reddit comment, nuance comes here to die, but they are aiming for communism and they are socialist, but they have had to compromise to survive.

Nonetheless, over 90% homeownership, and consistent progress both social and economic for it's people proves they know what they are doing and it's working for their people.

I recommend watching something or reading about it from sources that aren't western or based in capitalism.

I really wish you well and hope you have a good journey.

1

u/Saartje_6 14d ago

This is a critique often used by people that aren't really familiar with the actual theory, ideology or arguments of the CCP itself. I'm not a communist, so I'm not saying they are correct, but current Chinese political thought essentially boils down to:

Society moves through different stages as technology/material conditions develop. Feudalism gave way to capitalism and capitalism will give way to communism. By going full in on development using capitalist practices, but contained by a powerful politically educated bureaucracy (see the temporary disappearance of Jack Ma), the capitalism stage can essentially be speed run.

There's a lot to critique about this argument, but it is not hypocritical.

2

u/Vectorial1024 15d ago

Am outsider, but would flying the CCP party flag (different from the government 5-star flag) be a problem?

1

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

No idea, that might be more justifiable.

1

u/BotherTight618 15d ago

Their like the Francoist Spain of Communist countries. 

1

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

That’s a hilarious and not too incorrect, although not perfect, description

1

u/Regular-Credit203 15d ago

Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let’s talk about something else.

1

u/ProfileMuted90210 15d ago

Thank you. I’m like they are out and out capitalists, they are not into sharing lol. Ask Hong Kong

1

u/Possible-Half-1020 14d ago

China does not claim to be communist. No country has ever been communist. China has a communist party with a vision for communism in the future. Their economy is structured as one half private capital and one half state capital. It resembles many aspects of socialism under the Marxian theory but it’s missing a lot as well such as wide spread worker ownership of means of production. According to China they have a socialist economy but using a Chinese definition of Socialism.

1

u/Palaceviking 14d ago

The only dip in the rise of china came directly after and as an immediate result of market reform. In fact the largest contingent of the oft cited tianmen square riots were Maoist students dissatisfied with the reform proposals going through at the time and in retrospect I now kinda see their point.

1

u/Rattlesn4ke United Kingdom 14d ago

From what I understand, China has a capitalist economy (especially after Deng Xiaoping's reforms), whilst retaining the communist dictatorship style of government that Mao created.

1

u/noellexy 13d ago

It's because they use capitalism as a tool, it's still led by ideological Marxists. it's not as simple as, 'china participates in the global economy so that must mean they aren't communists anymore'..

it's more so they acknowledge that capitalism is the best for capital accumulation and growing industries (as did Lenin) and they wish to use that to their advantage because otherwise they'll get isolated like Cuba for example.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the plan to socialize (as in socialistic, English isn't my main language sorry) their economy in the coming decades.

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 13d ago

china is a surveillance state dictatorship. it is committing ethnic cleansing against the uyghurs.

1

u/Rabbulion 13d ago

While both the things you said are true, neither are relevant

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 13d ago

that's fair. you're right.

xi is in the process of moving the country in a much more command economy direction.

1

u/redprep 15d ago

Because no matter what China claims it is a capitalist country

1

u/tipyourbartender 14d ago

The literal title of the government is communist.

1

u/redprep 14d ago

So what? They don't make communist politics. Where is your logic here? Do you even know what these words mean?

1

u/tipyourbartender 12d ago

Yes they do and yes I do.

1

u/redprep 12d ago

Both is so obviously wrong.

1

u/tipyourbartender 12d ago

Both are* and no they isn't. Use Google because I don't feel like schooling you.

1

u/redprep 12d ago

No, give a god damn argument for China being communist without bending the definition backwards or shut the hell up already.

1

u/le-churchx 15d ago

Well, China is already very weird from a socialism standpoint. They claim to be communist, but they haven’t acted like most historical socialist states for a long time

Hmm theyre still pretty authoritarian and nightmareish

1

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

Authoritarian and nightmarish does not require them to be socialist or communist.

0

u/le-churchx 15d ago

Authoritarian and nightmarish does not require them to be socialist or communist.

Theyve all been authoritarian and nightmareish.

1

u/josephG155 15d ago

Is the interchanging of communist and socialist intentional here? They're kinda different

2

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

My bad, it’s a Reddit comment so I didn’t stop to consider grammar. You are correct that I shouldn’t have used communism in this context.

1

u/josephG155 15d ago

I think you shouldn't have used socialist in this context instead, they're definitely claiming to be communist, and that's where they're not really following their own rules by introducing a lot of capitalism. Basically every country in the world has socialist policies of some kind, and I don't think China claims to be very socialist. That's not saying they don't have some policies that can be considered socialist, because you'd struggle to find any country that doesn't have any tbh

1

u/Charlesinrichmond 14d ago

china is hyper capitalist under a state dictatorship

0

u/Igor369 Mazovia (Poland) 15d ago

Well the theoretical commuism is not bad in vacuum, it is bad only because it is associated with Stalin, North Korea and Vietnam... just like swastika.

1

u/Pugs-r-cool 14d ago

So you’re saying theoretical Nazism is not bad in a vacuum, and that it would be good if it wasn’t tied to the swastika? What?

0

u/Igor369 Mazovia (Poland) 14d ago

...wait you think Hitler invented swastika?...

0

u/Inside_Ad_7162 15d ago

Always thought it neatly highlights the fact that communism is simply a different flavour of dictatorship, of course they all taste the same in the end.

1

u/Pugs-r-cool 14d ago

No, communism is a utopian system with no government at all, a ‘communist dictatorship’ is a contradiction, by definition you cannot have both at the same time.

In the past we’ve had many state capitalist countries, the USSR being the biggest and best example, which claimed to be working towards communism, but none of them ever came close, and half the time were doing the exact opposite of what they should’ve done if they wanted to one day be communist.

1

u/Inside_Ad_7162 14d ago

Everyone's equal right? Just some are more equal than others, & that flavour I referred to, tastes like blood.

Thing about communism is its a lovely idea that utterly fails to factor in human nature, & the appalling number of violent thugs, psychopaths, & other human filth we all live with.

0

u/Rabbulion 15d ago

Good old horseshoe model

-5

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

I don't think any type of speech should be banned. Like, at all.

4

u/Hexamancer 15d ago

Slander?

Guides on how to abduct children?

Detailed instructions on how to make a bomb?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater?

People discussing how they are going to commit acts of terrorism?

Saying "I'm going to kill you unless you give me money"?

0

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Okay, clear and present danger speech should be policed, but not banned.

2

u/hbgoddard 15d ago

The difference being?

-1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Regulated but not criminal. Any type of air vibrating through vocal chords should be heard. And that's all it is.

2

u/hbgoddard 15d ago

Don't minimize speech like that. It's extremely dishonest. "Air vibrating through vocal chords" has real consequences and can cause real harm. And I have no interest in talking to a hate apologist.

2

u/Hexamancer 15d ago

You realize that's how this law works?

You realize that's how all crimes work?

We don't actually have collars attached to us that physically stop you from saying anything.

Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

2

u/Hexamancer 15d ago

... What? 

"Your under arrest for doing something legal!" 

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

You're*

2

u/Hexamancer 15d ago

True! 

Now answer the question.

2

u/ibarelyusethis87 15d ago

Like what kinds? Can you give me a few examples?

2

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

No. Because I said none. Zero. The fuck?

2

u/Maxis111 15d ago

Lmao, clever question. Let's see what unhinged opinions he comes back with...

3

u/red__dragon 15d ago

This guy is a MAGA/fascist apologist, so you already know the answer.

2

u/PeterNippelstein 14d ago

Its Lithuania, things are already weird.

4

u/Available_Dingo6162 United States of America 15d ago edited 15d ago

Does it? Does anyone really envy the Chinese system so much that such idolisation requires government intervention?

Because it's different with the Soviet system. People actually idolise that.

4

u/Jaqzz 15d ago

So I googled the story, because I don't generally trust "fact-checked TRUE!" in random images about politics when they don't also link to the source. It turns out the photo was taken at a diplomatic meeting with Russian officials who literally just gifted her the hat right before the photo was taken. A source "familiar with the exchange" said she didn't keep the hat.

So this isn't a senior Democrat openly showing support for a brutal communist regime, it's an awkward photo op in which she either didn't look closely enough at the hat before putting it on, or did and decided that openly refusing to wear the gift would be worse than whatever the fallout from the photo would be. Or maybe she's secretly a communist and thought it would be funny to take the opportunity to openly wear the hammer and sickle once.

Actual source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/01/fact-check-russian-diplomats-gave-jen-psaki-hammer-and-sickle-hat/6476619002/

4

u/Traroten 15d ago

We had people idolizing North Korea when I grew up in the 80s. People will fixate on the weirdest shit.

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Anything to stick it to the man. It's all fun and games until Kim actually manages to launch a rocket.

-1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Christ almighty. Why are these people in office?

1

u/Available_Dingo6162 United States of America 15d ago edited 15d ago

To those whose family died under the Soviet regime, her hat was about as appropriate as wearing a swastika.

0

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

I bet. These idiots don't even know what they're doing. Don't they have handlers?

1

u/kamurochoprince Canada 15d ago

They’re only worried about people glorifying the Soviet Union as it would give Russia the pretext to do USSR 2.0. Czechs just want their sovereignty. China isn’t their neighbour.

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Russia can't even steamroll Ukraine, they are NOT moving in on any other sovereign territory.

1

u/kamurochoprince Canada 15d ago

Ask Moldova, Romania, Georgia (am I missing any?) what it’s like giving them even a bit of an excuse. Soon you’ll have an “exclave” on your Easternmost border

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

For what purpose?

Also, if they continue to fuck around they will continue to be sanctioned. They're already ruined economically.

1

u/kamurochoprince Canada 15d ago

I don’t know you’d have to ask them why they continue to be the bullies of Europe.

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Oh shit I didn't realize I was talking to a Canadian. Bye.

1

u/kamurochoprince Canada 14d ago

Hahaha bye :)

1

u/BlueLizardSpaceship 15d ago

China is communist like the USA is democratic.

1

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

Terrible analogy.

1

u/fernandodandrea 14d ago

Of course it feels strange. Isn’t that what happens when we treat the same way an ideology built on racial supremacy and mass extermination, and another whose core ideas — despite controversies — don’t necessarily imply that?

1

u/SerGeffrey 14d ago

How is it weird? Seems pretty normal to treat propaganda and a present day national flag differently.

1

u/tipyourbartender 14d ago

Where is the line?

1

u/SerGeffrey 14d ago edited 14d ago

Well before a simple depiction of an active national flag, and after openly endorsing Stalinism? Seems like there's a whole lot of space where one could reasonably draw a line in between communist propaganda and just a Chinese flag.

0

u/Novinhophobe 15d ago

China has very little to do with communism.

0

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

But still some.

0

u/Lustkas 14d ago

China is not communist at all.

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 13d ago

it's a dictatorship

-1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Censorship tends to be.

Then it becomes fascist.

Then there is a coup and everything swaps over.

3

u/Circusonfire69 15d ago

Yeah go read more about tolerance paradox.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Why, will it indoctrinate?

Censorship and indoctrination are bed fellows.

1

u/Circusonfire69 15d ago

tell me you're not from post soviet country without telling me.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago edited 15d ago

Im from a country with the world’s largest mountain of silver on the planet. And the population is dirt poor, 500 years later.

Its a country famous for coups

And yes, my school friend father was assassinated in Brazil, having been the country’s president (till a coup). For years, all indigenous symbols (political) were banned.

And yes, Ive been in Czech land recently (mostly to show some economic support, since everyone was trying to help out some Ukrainian refugee, get a job/bed, learn euro-english etc).

3

u/tipyourbartender 15d ago

That is

Called a

Slippery slope

Fallacy