shouldn’t the mention of china in rule 2 contradict with rule 5?
china is a capitalist state, so no.
Isn’t it a mixed economy, so like half and half? /srsq
I think the CCP describes it as the preliminary form of socialism or whatever, but how much of that is serious, and how much of that is just propaganda to distinguish themselves from the decadent western nations? most scholars would probably call it state capitalism.
just because the major corporations like China Tobacco are state owned, doesn’t mean they aren’t exploiting the population for profit though. keep in mind that most of the unethical consumption under capitalism in the west is powered by orphan crushing machines in the east.
then why not do capitalism like china, their conditions have improved so much, take one look at shanghai than at London or LA
No, china is not really a socialist experiment/state. A more accurate description is state capitalist with maybe some socialist tendencies here and there.
I assume those rules are in place to encourage a nuanced understanding, acknowledging the good things china has done (hsr & infrastructure, probable better healthcare than the us but idk tbh) while being a ke to point out the bad/imperialist things they do as well. (Uyghur genocide, aggression in the south china sea, taiwian, etc.)
I will freely admit I am not the most knowlegeble about the intricacies of china. Many of China’s problems and such are also definitely over-exaggerated by the US and western powers that are adverserial to china.
However, what specifically did I mention that is incorrect, besides not being aware of more things China excels at/is progressive on due to western media control and not caring enough to go look for it myself?
Seems pretty straightforward to me. There’s a big difference between critically evaluating the massive failures of the USSR (for instance) and demonizing the USSR because “commie bad!”
