Liberalism is not opposed to government intervention. Iran is heavily based on private property. That’s like saying the US isn’t liberal because of the millitary industrial complex.
You’re confusing liberalism, the ideology, with vague ideas of personal freedom.
Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt.
Being slow is not at odds with liberalism, nor is government intervention. Again, this is like saying the US isn’t liberal because of the millitary industrial complex. Further, Iran is nationalist as well as liberal, it isn’t really imperialized but it isn’t socialist either.
No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening.
Systems aren’t decided by how “serious” the people in charge are. Iran is still a liberal nationalist country.
Further, the PRC is absolutely serious about socialism, the lives of the working class are dramatically improving and the number of billionaires is shrinking. The large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly controlled. Having a stock market is a contradiction, but one that is limited to medium and small firms, which cannot simply be siezed and planned but are allowed to develop to the point that they can be planned better.
You really shouldn’t be speaking as though you understand China if you still don’t understand Iran, liberalism, and socialism.
Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization.
Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism.
You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all.
There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising.
Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit.
Liberalism isn’t just a button that says “privatize.” A fully liberal society isn’t one that has 100% of production private, it’s one where private property is the driving factor of the economy.
Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. Socialism isn’t limited to a narrow conception of cooperative production, but large, centralized production, in the Marxist conception. Wealth inequality is under control, and is gradually being worked downwards as the economy becomes more and more centralized. You have a deep chauvanism about you, not only do you presume to know socialism better than the socialists, but you do so without actually engaging with socialist theory, otherwise you wouldn’t make such an error.
Further, I absolutely know what “all” means. As others have pointed out, you’ve been arguing against a position you invented, not my own. You’re just a debatelord, you have no desire to come to a greater understanding.
“ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “
No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist.
Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure.
Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all”
Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case.
Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven.
No, you’re wrong about socialism. Marxism is precisely against the idea that you can eliminate all private property immediately. It is a gradual process of sublimation, as firms get large enough they become economically compelled to become centrally planned. Investors in the PRC is not a failure. Investors running the CPC and PRC would be, but that’s not the case. Your understanding of socialism is incredibly off-base, and as such you’re in no position to argue. Leftists aren’t “ignoring reality,” you’re just making up claims to argue with.
And, again, I stated that the development of capitalism necessarily means those developed countries become imperialist. Those in the global south cannot become developed unless they become nationalist, and even then they don’t become developed, they stay constrained, and those that are socialist do not have the same mechanisms at play that drive imperialism. The lack of available capital to imperialize for nationalist countries in the global south prevents them from reaching the same levels of development of the global north.
You are utterly incapable of making a coherent argument, you have to invent the positions of not just me, but other socialists, in order to maintain your fragile debatelord worldview.
Liberalism is not opposed to government intervention. Iran is heavily based on private property. That’s like saying the US isn’t liberal because of the millitary industrial complex.
You’re confusing liberalism, the ideology, with vague ideas of personal freedom.
Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt.
Being slow is not at odds with liberalism, nor is government intervention. Again, this is like saying the US isn’t liberal because of the millitary industrial complex. Further, Iran is nationalist as well as liberal, it isn’t really imperialized but it isn’t socialist either.
No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening.
Systems aren’t decided by how “serious” the people in charge are. Iran is still a liberal nationalist country.
Further, the PRC is absolutely serious about socialism, the lives of the working class are dramatically improving and the number of billionaires is shrinking. The large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly controlled. Having a stock market is a contradiction, but one that is limited to medium and small firms, which cannot simply be siezed and planned but are allowed to develop to the point that they can be planned better.
You really shouldn’t be speaking as though you understand China if you still don’t understand Iran, liberalism, and socialism.
Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization.
Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism.
You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all.
There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising.
Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID?
Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit.
Liberalism isn’t just a button that says “privatize.” A fully liberal society isn’t one that has 100% of production private, it’s one where private property is the driving factor of the economy.
Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. Socialism isn’t limited to a narrow conception of cooperative production, but large, centralized production, in the Marxist conception. Wealth inequality is under control, and is gradually being worked downwards as the economy becomes more and more centralized. You have a deep chauvanism about you, not only do you presume to know socialism better than the socialists, but you do so without actually engaging with socialist theory, otherwise you wouldn’t make such an error.
Further, I absolutely know what “all” means. As others have pointed out, you’ve been arguing against a position you invented, not my own. You’re just a debatelord, you have no desire to come to a greater understanding.
“ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “
No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist.
Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure.
Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all”
Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case.
Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven.
No, you’re wrong about socialism. Marxism is precisely against the idea that you can eliminate all private property immediately. It is a gradual process of sublimation, as firms get large enough they become economically compelled to become centrally planned. Investors in the PRC is not a failure. Investors running the CPC and PRC would be, but that’s not the case. Your understanding of socialism is incredibly off-base, and as such you’re in no position to argue. Leftists aren’t “ignoring reality,” you’re just making up claims to argue with.
And, again, I stated that the development of capitalism necessarily means those developed countries become imperialist. Those in the global south cannot become developed unless they become nationalist, and even then they don’t become developed, they stay constrained, and those that are socialist do not have the same mechanisms at play that drive imperialism. The lack of available capital to imperialize for nationalist countries in the global south prevents them from reaching the same levels of development of the global north.
You are utterly incapable of making a coherent argument, you have to invent the positions of not just me, but other socialists, in order to maintain your fragile debatelord worldview.