• MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Love how you respond to a bunch of information from the World Bank, NYT, and the National Bureau of Economic Research with a definition from Wikipedia.

    Consider that you could learn more here.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Do any of the sources define socialism?

      All of this could be true - none of this makes China socialist.

      • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        59 minutes ago

        You said:

        China is capitalist… It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one.

        The response was a well-souced refutation of the idea that the Chinese economy is developing like a capitalist economy. You replied with Wikipedia. All I’m saying is that you’re not looking at this in a whole lot of detail and you might have some things to learn.

        For instance, you say Nordic countries have low rates of poverty and good social supports despite private ownership of the means of production. But in reality a lot of that is due to sovereign wealth funds, like Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, which is owned by the government and managed by a state-owned bank.