I do not know enough about socialism to opine about it. My opinion of Marxism is that it is right to admonish against commodification of labor, but it is very wrong in that it calls for violence. While I think Marxism can be understood as critiquing capitalism and that such critique is helpful, I do not and cannot support Marxism's call for violence.

What question you want ask about socialism in China? — guanyun

Hello guanyun,

I have three questions regarding Chinese socialism.

How deep was the transition of Deng Xiaoping into the rule of market, or said it in other words, the "Modern China"?

What is the impact of Xi Jinping on 21th century China? Is it true that he owns more leadership and charisma than Mao's socialism?

How does it work real state agencies in China regarding that this is one of the main markets of capitalism? I know that one of the top agencies in Shanghai went into bankruptcy. Do you know why?

Marxism calls for violence because under the basic structure of capitalism, the capitalists will not allow the proletariat to share power. But like you, I don't subscribe to violent change in society.

The first question

How deep was the transition of Deng Xiaoping into the rule of market, or said it in other words, the "Modern China"?

After Deng Xiaoping, China rapidly integrated itself into the world's economic system, and in the aftermath of reform and opening up, prior to 2018, China essentially held a laissez-faire liberal economic model. Because of the nature of the free market, this quickly changed the lives of the Chinese people.
So, according to your question, we've basically come into the modern era in terms of material life, but the hardest thing to change is ideas, and from a descriptive point of view, the ideas of imperial-era China are still deeply ingrained in China today, especially in the backward places, such as patriarchal ideology, such as the worship of political power, and we're only a hundred years away from the Qing Dynasty today, and we're still in the middle of the modern era and the kingship era, although in terms of life, there is not much difference between our lives and those of other countries.

Not know how to answer the second question, cause the result is not yet revealed.

Not know how to answer the third question too.
I used to be a software development engineer for a large company before I decided to go to university for my master's degree, and I do know that China was in a state of lack of regulation for Internet companies before, but I was in favor of regulation myself.
I do know that the Chinese are really prone to corruption because of our rapid entry into the world economy and because of the lack of moral education in the process of the economy. And, after 2018, the Chinese government's consistent strong regulation and zero tolerance for corruption has really led to poor economic conditions.
I know westerners in China would probably obey the law and have a sense of morality too I guess.
But Chinese people working with westerners don't necessarily follow the law very well because of their own lack of morality, so strong regulation is something that should happen, but just suffers from a lot of suspicion because of our system.

Thanks for your replies.

Summarising...

Maybe I understood wrongly, but it seems that you perceive Modern China as highly-developed in economics but undeveloped in terms of ethics or morality. I wonder if you perceive that the path taken by Deng Xiaoping went off from the real Chinese socialist culture perpetuated by Mao. Yet, it is very interesting your view on corruption. You state that whenever Chinese officials or entrepreneurs work along with Western citizens they tend to disrespect the law. I also wonder if this is a cultural conflict rather than a political one. We already debated this issue in the forum and I believe (I hope I am not wrong at all) that in China, Japan, Korea, etc... unethical actions such as corruption are more punished or socially rejected than in the Western world.

On the other hand, we tend to see China as a rigid state where the law is effective. I do not pretend to say that it is perfect, but it at least works as it should be. I am from Spain and here the establishment and public institutions work badly. They are corrupt and incompetent and even the law tends to be "soft" on corrupt politicians. This is why I miss Asian and Chinese culture more on my system. Here we lack rigid norms and attitudes. I do not want to sound so ignorant and say "China is a dictatorship" because we in the Western world are also blurred in terms of real representativeness...

Maybe I understood wrongly, but it seems that you perceive Modern China as highly-developed in economics but undeveloped in terms of ethics or morality.

YES.

I wonder if you perceive that the path taken by Deng Xiaoping went off from the real Chinese socialist culture perpetuated by Mao.

I don't think Mao has any legacy circulating in China today. We all walked out a long time ago, and some people still mention it today because they want to keep the regime coherent.

You state that whenever Chinese officials or entrepreneurs work along with Western citizens they tend to disrespect the law.

When Western businessmen do business in China, they have to rely on Chinese businessmen, but the previous or recent generations of Chinese businessmen were not necessarily well educated morally, and the new generation of businessmen are a little better.

I also wonder if this is a cultural conflict rather than a political one. We already debated this issue in the forum and I believe (I hope I am not wrong at all) that in China, Japan, Korea, etc... unethical actions such as corruption are more punished or socially rejected than in the Western world.

Not sure I understand your question correctly, the competition between China and the U.S. is both political and cultural, but I don't think that China would deliberately sabotage Western businesses, and in many cases it's the businessmen that Western businesses rely on in China that make mistakes, corrupt mistakes.

On the other hand, we tend to see China as a rigid state where the law is effective. I do not pretend to say that it is perfect, but it at least works as it should be

China's laws are not rigid, and I think it's a bogus question that they're actually being revised very quickly. It just means that there are political issues where China has no room for maneuver.

I do not want to sound so ignorant and say "China is a dictatorship" because we in the Western world are also blurred in terms of real representativeness...

I don't think the West really understands China, in fact, on many levels, Western attitudes towards China are being pushed by Western populations, and I of course I don't think China is doing exactly the right thing either.

I agree with you. It is true that we do not really understand how China works and most of the information that comes from your country is biased by the Western media. I always tend to understand how Asia works because countries like China or Japan seem to be very interesting to me. At least, I still defend that things work out better there than here (in the overall view). Yet, the poison of corruption is everywhere, but I see that some countries are more drastic than others.

On the other hand, it is interesting how you say that Mao's legacy is rarely seen as Chinese people nowadays. I do not understand if it is "good" or "bad" or if it is just a generational issue. But I think it is worth highlighting how impressive his revolution was. Maybe this belongs to the old days, but I think there was a "before" and an "after" in China due to Mao's doctrine.

Please read the help article on how to quote properly. Basically, use 'quote' tags not 'code' tags.

On the other hand, it is interesting how you say that Mao's legacy is rarely seen as Chinese people nowadays. I do not understand if it is "good" or "bad" or if it is just a generational issue. But I think it is worth highlighting how impressive his revolution was. Maybe this belongs to the old days, but I think there was a "before" and an "after" in China due to Mao's doctrine. — javi2541997

My opinion,Mao was an emperor, not a leader, and I must make it clear that China now started with Deng Xiaoping, and while Mao did a lot, he didn't modernize China, and in a sense, China now looks like the Second French Republic.

sorry, just fixed.

My opinion,Mao was an emperor, not a leader, and I must make it clear that China now started with Deng Xiaoping, and while Mao did a lot, he didn't modernize China, and in a sense, China now looks like the Second French Republic. — guanyun

I understand you now. To be honest, I always thought that Deng Xiaoping was the real architect of China and I acknowledge his big effort to transform China. You even considered it as a Second French Republic, so I see it as a drastic change. Nonetheless, you said previously that despite China has been increasing the economic standards of Chinese citizens, ethics and morality have decreased in terms of culture or civism. What do you think is the main cause here? Are the modern generation of Chinese people aware of such a detriment?

ethics and morality have decreased in terms of culture or civism. — javi2541997

Ethics and morality have decreased is not an accurate description, Yu Yingshi once said that he expects China to be a rich and well-mannered China, but such a situation only existed in the richer parts of China in the past, rather it is better to say that in the past, because of the lack of integration into universal values, China has not built up morality in the modern sense, but it is being built up at the moment.

China has not built up morality in the modern sense, but it is being built up at the moment. — guanyun

I understand. Thank you and I appreciate your answers regarding this topic. I personally think that the concept of "modernity" is open to free interpretation and it is complex to distinguish which society acts better than the other. Yet I follow what you are explaining on the path of current Chinese society.

sorry, just fixed. — guanyun

No problems, and welcome.

Based on this:
I'm reading Political Philosphy in China, I do support socialism, however I'm skeptical of Marxism.
I would find it very interesting to exchange views with you.

I consider my own political/social labels as 'democratic socialist' and 'secular humanist.'

What do you think about socialism & Marxism? — guanyun

They are related in many many ways but are certainly not synonymous. If you wish to discuss the differences that I personally perceive, then I would be willing, but there may not be much value in that exchange, for either of us.

What question you want ask about socialism in China? — guanyun

Do you think China, since the revolution, was ever correctly labelled as socialist?
What for you, is evidence that the label 'communist,' is more apt, than socialist, for the current Chinese regime or is 'autocratic control backed by a rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite,' more accurate as a description of the current Chinese government, in your opinion?
How can a system be socialist, if it is one party rule and not based on the regular democratic vote of the people?
Do/did you support the Tiananmen square protesters?

My next question I would ask you, is probably totally spawned from Western propaganda but It's still important to ask, in my opinion.
If you are typing on TPF from a networked computer in China, are you worried that the Chinese authorities, do have a system of monitoring the internet activity of its population, with the goal of identifying dissidents?

Do you think China, since the revolution, was ever correctly labelled as socialist? — universeness

At this moment, I don't think China is a socialist country. From my understanding, China has had a Nozick-style libertarian economic system since Deng Xiaoping. However, this system has changed in 2018. China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system.

What for you, is evidence that the label 'communist,' is more apt, than socialist, for the current Chinese regime or is 'autocratic control backed by a rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite,' more accurate as a description of the current Chinese government, in your opinion? — universeness

It is really hard to tell, I think both sides exist. Deng Xiaoping has a policy to let some people and some regions prosper before others so that they can bring along the backward regions. Its policies like this caused "rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite". But it is very clear that the current government is trying to create a more economic equality environment, so I could say that China is trying to be socialist and trying to get rid of elite capital, only the process is painful and the result is the current economic slide.

How can a system be socialist, if it is one party rule and not based on the regular democratic vote of the people? — universeness

The political reality is very complex, there are many places that still exist the worship of power politics and non-universal values. I am not endorsing the regime, but as someone who came from the bottom of China, I know that the reality in China is very cruel and complicated, which involves the clash of different clan concepts, different regional concepts and different ethnic philosophies. We are powerless to talk about China from philosophical concepts. So my libertarian ideals are all confined to my personal actions, without trying to influence others.

If you are typing on TPF from a networked computer in China, are you worried that the Chinese authorities, do have a system of monitoring the internet activity of its population, with the goal of identifying dissidents? — universeness

Actually, the academic field in China is quite free, if one can confine oneself to more rational discourse.I don't support the surveillance of people, but I also see that people around the world are really not rational enough in their virtue. It's hard to evaluate.

At this moment, I don't think China is a socialist country. From my understanding, China has had a Nozick-style libertarian economic system since Deng Xiaoping. However, this system has changed in 2018. China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system. — guanyun

I am not familiar with Robert Nozick but based on a google search, what examples of Chinese policy do you think are in line with what this wiki article states about the notions of Nozick?
Robert Nozick (/ˈnoʊzɪk/; November 16, 1938 – January 23, 2002) was an American philosopher. He held the Joseph Pellegrino University Professorship at Harvard University, and was president of the American Philosophical Association. He is best known for his books Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a libertarian answer to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971), in which Nozick alsopresented his own theory of utopia as one in which people can freely choose the rules of the society they enter into, and Philosophical Explanations (1981), which included his counterfactual theory of knowledge. His other work involved ethics, decision theory, philosophy of mind, metaphysics and epistemology. His final work before his death, Invariances (2001), introduced his theory of evolutionary cosmology, by which he argues invariances, and hence objectivity itself, emerged through evolution across possible worlds.

I know the words underlined in this 'first paragraph only,' from the wiki article regarding Nozick's work are at best 'a simplistic overview,' but even with the limits of that in mind, the people of China do not, to me, seem to have the individual voice or collective 'people power,' needed to achieve any such notion as that reportedly espoused by Nozick in the words I underlined above.

Can you give me an example of a current governmental policy, that demonstrates how "China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system."

But it is very clear that the current government is trying to create a more economic equality environment, so I could say that China is trying to be socialist and trying to get rid of elite capital, only the process is painful and the result is the current economic slide. — guanyun

Again can you give an example of a current policy which exemplifies what you are referring to?

I know that the reality in China is very cruel and complicated, which involves the clash of different clan concepts, different regional concepts and different ethnic philosophies. — guanyun

All nations on this planet have this problem, but few agreed to a one party permanent governance with a party elected undemocratic autocratic leader, as the solution. The Chinese government does not seek the regularly renewed consent of its population, to govern. It is therefore in no way socialist and your reason for that current reality as stated above, is in my opinion, an unacceptable one.

We are powerless to talk about China from philosophical concepts. — guanyun

What do you mean by this?

So my libertarian ideals are all confined to my personal actions, without trying to influence others. — guanyun

But personal actions of any significantly public kind, will influence others. Are all such actions you choose to take hidden and secret? You are posting on a public platform but I do accept that your identity and exact whereabouts are more protected, is that what you mean?

Actually, the academic field in China is quite free — guanyun

Do you feel free enough to critisize the Chinese government in the same way as I can criticise the UK or the Scottish government here where I live, in Scotland, without fear of physical attack from that same governments military or/and police forces?

What do you think of leading Chinese dissidents, such as the artist and filmmaker Ai Weiwei and his articles such as, 'Too late to curb China's global influence.'

I don't support the surveillance of people, but I also see that people around the world are really not rational enough in their virtue. It's hard to evaluate. — guanyun

I noticed you offered no opinion on the Tiananmen square protests and the many Chinese people who were killed by the Chinese authorities. That's fine, and I am sure you have legitimate reason why you choose not to comment. Does that also mean you would choose not to respond with your true opinion to such questions like:
1. Does the Chinese government currently have a policy of aggression and subjugation towards it's (traditionally Muslim) Uyghur population?
2. Most of the world powers support Ukraine against the current Russian invasion, even though the current Russian regime considers Ukraine, Russian land, in a similar way to the current Chinese regime in their claims on Taiwan. Does China have a legitimate claim to Taiwan?
3. How can China ever be considered socialist when it is not democratic, and it currently stands accused of:
- acting like an imperialist conqueror in Tibet.
- imposing a permanent government/dictatorship in mainland China and in Hong Kong.
- currently performing a military build up and an aggressive posture in the south China sea.

I currently hold the opinion that the Chinese government is a horrible regime that must be overthrown by its people, but do you think I am merely duped by western propaganda? and my current low opinions, of the Chinese political system are incorrect, and the majority of the Chinese population generally supports the current structure, workings and domestic and foreign policies of the current Chinese regime?

As a socialist, I cannot call the current Chinese government anything other than a regime, which is forced upon its people. I also insist that no government can ever, ever be called socialist, if it does not have regular, fair and free, democratic elections, of, for and by its population.

I know the words underlined in this 'first paragraph only,' from the wiki article regarding Nozick's work are at best 'a simplistic overview,' but even with the limits of that in mind, the people of China do not, to me, seem to have the individual voice or collective 'people power,' needed to achieve any such notion as that reportedly espoused by Nozick in the words I underlined above. — universeness

You are asking so many questions about political reality, but you don't know Nozick's theory, and I don't think I can continue to answer what you've asked. Problems of political reality and problems of philosophical theory need to be described through rigor and precision, not just value judgments.

I think most people in the West do not really appreciate how far both Russia and China have progressed in a very short time.

we're only a hundred years away from the Qing Dynasty today, and we're still in the middle of the modern era and the kingship era, although in terms of life, there is not much difference between our lives and those of other countries. — guanyun

This. And yet also there is a much longer tradition in China than the European history of maybe 3,000 years. There is much moral wisdom surely in the Confucian and Taoist traditions, as well as a deal of pragmatic good sense? The Chinese ex-patriots I have met have been hard-working, loyal to family, especially their elders, valuing education, law-abiding and honest and respectful in their business dealings. This is just an impression from a few acquaintances, but do not doubt that there is also much cruelty and immorality in the West, especially in politics, for all the fine words that are spoken.

To answer your question; socialism is still a respectable ideology in Europe, but not in the US. But the economic power of working people and trade unions has waned due to automation and outsourcing to developing countries, so socialism is failing us in modern times. Marxism was never more than a minority fantasy here though because, I suppose, Colonial exploitation during the industrial revolution, and slavery in the US took some of the sting out of the transformation of rural peasants into industrial workers until socialism grew the teeth to make real improvements for them. But of course all this is too broad and vague to have much real truth.

You are correct, I don't know Nozick's theory. I am more interested in the 'realpolitik,' than what others claim are mere value judgements. That of course, does not dilute the very important issue of taking all human based value judgements as worthy of political attention, because if politicians don't pay attention to such then they will perish on that particular rock (at least under political systems such as that of the UK). I did not think you would be able to answer my questions but thanks for the exchange anyway.

What is the impact of Xi Jinping on 21th century China? Is it true that he owns more leadership and charisma than Mao's socialism? — javi2541997

To answer your second question, I would say the emphasis on economy weakened. Nationalism and personality cult are on the rise. So there is a growing tension in China regarding him and his policies. As for charisma, no comment on it. I guess I value more what he actually accomplish during his time as a chairman. For some people, I guess the charisma thing is real, though for people like me, this sort of propaganda seems more like a means to an end since we've passed that stage where there would be a prevailing belief in one person. These are just from my perspective :).

Hello Hailey! I appreciate your perspective on Xi Jinping. Welcome to the forum, I wish you the best flowing around.

Coming back to Xi. I think that every leader has his ups and downs, and governing a big nation as China would be one of the most difficult tasks for a human. If it is nearly impossible to govern Spain when it is an unknown subject on the international arena, I can't imagine China.

Just to clarify what I tended to understand when I debated with Guan yuan: I was wondering if Xi will be remembered as one of the main artificers of Chinese modern history, as well as Deng Xiaoping or Mao. Nevertheless, Guan said to me that Mao's doctrine is rarely seen in nowadays and China is completely different.

I know that there are (or were) other leaders to consider. But to be honest, most of them are unknown in the Western media. I do not know if it is because we have trouble understanding you or just because they weren't charismatic enough.
This issue also happens in other Asian countries, like Japan, for instance. Shinzō Abe was a notable leader and very charismatic, but his successors are rarely unknown unless you are interested in Japan. This is why - I guess - this is more about a cultural thing rather than a political one. I live in Spain and everything is related to the European Union. Maybe your context is related to China and East Asia.

Who do you think should control and manage capital?

was wondering if Xi will be remembered as one of the main artificers of Chinese modern history, as well as Deng Xiaoping or Mao. — javi2541997

That we will wait and see. One thing is real though, that we feel less free to speak our mind. We fear what we said online might have real life consequences.

Mao's legacy is rarely seen as Chinese people nowadays — javi2541997

For this argument, I disagree. I myself is not particularly a fan. But I see many people, old or young, on the internet, actually admire him. They worship what he built. It almost felt that time has wiped away some downsides. Also, he is the one people always refer to under arguments in support of socialism. I'd say Mao is someone special to Chinese. Again, such an impression comes from my online experiences.