The first question is frustrating and honesty Ken Hammond didn't answer well enough. Okay, let me do this for him: The inequality post-1978 was objectively better in material term for the Chinese people than the equality pre-1978. Ken Hammond himself said that pre-1978 Chinese society was equal in poverty. Equating and even idealizing "equality in poverty" is Pauperism that even Lenin warned against. Instead of obsessing over the gap between Jack Ma and a rural peasant in a small Chinese village, we should instead see how much the baseline of life of the latter has improved over the year. This is what Prof. Ken Hammond missed and what the stupid questioner obsess for. In the quest for equality, he forgot to even consider whether the average Chinese people life have got better over the year (they did) and just obsessed over the obscene wealth of some billionaires (which is ironically enough, their wealth individually is quiet small compared to other billionaires from actually capitalist countries).
He effectively said all of that, just not in response to that specific question. It was more a statement of the questioner's position than anything else.
@@AbtinX no he is saying that comparing to pre-1978 era yes it is "less socialist". But how we can define the standards of being socialist? Even from a Marxist orthodox point of view, China already diverge from Marxism before 1949. But also according to Marxism, we have to consider the material reality for each cultures. Socialism can be adaptive, there are not only one way to do socialism, just like there are different forms of Capitalist societies.
When asked if China is a socialist country I often think of the Chinese proverb "We'll see". I mean for all the progress China has made it does not even have a government run healthcare system yet.
Is it though? The question presumes there is some audience that China benefits from convincing that they are Marxist. Who exactly is that? In a capitalist global economy under US hegemony that's a huge disadvantage. Who is actually going to support China more if they believe it's Marxist? The Western Left? We're a non-entity, politically irrelevant. The idea that the world's largest country is lying about its core identity to hoodwink us is the height of narcissistic arrogance. It's like how anti-communists used to think the leaders of the USSR only pretended to be Marxists, then after the dissolution of the USSR when all the transcripts of the meetings with Stalin were declassified the way they spoke behind the scenes was exactly how they spoke in public. Given that there is no one to impress by pretending to be Marxist, Occam's Razor would imply that they are quite simply what they say they are: a country with a ruling Communist Party trying to negotiate the achievement of their historical mission in a capitalist global economy lead by a hegemonic US which is dead-set on preventing this. It's actually much simpler than the conspiratorial view the questioner assumes. Why anyone would assume that a state in such a situation would be free of contradictions would be a much better question.
The tag of "socialist" or not, doesn't matter at all. Red China has a very affordable health-care for her citizens! Unlike the American Homeless, the CHINESE citizens can access to very affordable and excellent public health-care, just like those superb 350km/hr High Speed Rail, which the Chinese government provides very cheaply at cost! There is also private health care of Western capitalist nature, where money can buy.
I don't think that's the right metaphor. I prefer that socialism is adaptive. No one say there is only one way to achieve socialism. Like it is said, it's still a working progress.
The tag of "socialist" or not, doesn't matter at all. Red China has a very affordable health-care for her citizens! Unlike the American Homeless, the CHINESE citizens can access to very affordable and excellent public health-care, just like those superb 350km/hr High Speed Rail, which the Chinese government provides very cheaply at cost! There is also private health care of Western capitalist nature, where money can buy.
You know what part of the presentation frustrates me most? Is when he tried so hard to explain Tibet and Xinjiang issues, saying that China is not perfect but they are dealing with their own problems. Just like any other normal country in the world. You can tell how bad those anti-China propaganda are, that you have to prove so hard to people that China is just normal. When does being normal needs proof?
The first question is frustrating and honesty Ken Hammond didn't answer well enough. Okay, let me do this for him: The inequality post-1978 was objectively better in material term for the Chinese people than the equality pre-1978. Ken Hammond himself said that pre-1978 Chinese society was equal in poverty. Equating and even idealizing "equality in poverty" is Pauperism that even Lenin warned against. Instead of obsessing over the gap between Jack Ma and a rural peasant in a small Chinese village, we should instead see how much the baseline of life of the latter has improved over the year. This is what Prof. Ken Hammond missed and what the stupid questioner obsess for. In the quest for equality, he forgot to even consider whether the average Chinese people life have got better over the year (they did) and just obsessed over the obscene wealth of some billionaires (which is ironically enough, their wealth individually is quiet small compared to other billionaires from actually capitalist countries).
He effectively said all of that, just not in response to that specific question. It was more a statement of the questioner's position than anything else.
He's doing neither, he simply stated that China today is less socialist today and more capitalist.
@@AbtinX no he is saying that comparing to pre-1978 era yes it is "less socialist". But how we can define the standards of being socialist? Even from a Marxist orthodox point of view, China already diverge from Marxism before 1949. But also according to Marxism, we have to consider the material reality for each cultures. Socialism can be adaptive, there are not only one way to do socialism, just like there are different forms of Capitalist societies.
Bro said "inflation is going to the moon!" Uh what? They are literally more worried about deflation 😂
When asked if China is a socialist country I often think of the Chinese proverb "We'll see". I mean for all the progress China has made it does not even have a government run healthcare system yet.
It's not correct. China has a state-run healthcare system. The thing is that it still needs improvement.
@@borisnegrarosa9113 False. If it's not free then it cannot be called communism. In addition, China calls itself the primary stage of socialism
"they are using marxism as a mask"
- it was a good point, and it wasn't addressed adequately
Is it though? The question presumes there is some audience that China benefits from convincing that they are Marxist. Who exactly is that? In a capitalist global economy under US hegemony that's a huge disadvantage. Who is actually going to support China more if they believe it's Marxist? The Western Left? We're a non-entity, politically irrelevant. The idea that the world's largest country is lying about its core identity to hoodwink us is the height of narcissistic arrogance. It's like how anti-communists used to think the leaders of the USSR only pretended to be Marxists, then after the dissolution of the USSR when all the transcripts of the meetings with Stalin were declassified the way they spoke behind the scenes was exactly how they spoke in public. Given that there is no one to impress by pretending to be Marxist, Occam's Razor would imply that they are quite simply what they say they are: a country with a ruling Communist Party trying to negotiate the achievement of their historical mission in a capitalist global economy lead by a hegemonic US which is dead-set on preventing this. It's actually much simpler than the conspiratorial view the questioner assumes. Why anyone would assume that a state in such a situation would be free of contradictions would be a much better question.
Well some people in the communist party certainly are. That doesn't speak for China or the CPC as a political party.
The tag of "socialist" or not, doesn't matter at all.
Red China has a very affordable health-care for her citizens!
Unlike the American Homeless, the CHINESE citizens can access to very affordable and excellent public health-care, just like those superb 350km/hr High Speed Rail, which the Chinese government provides very cheaply at cost!
There is also private health care of Western capitalist nature, where money can buy.
I don't think that's the right metaphor. I prefer that socialism is adaptive. No one say there is only one way to achieve socialism. Like it is said, it's still a working progress.
The tag of "socialist" or not, doesn't matter at all.
Red China has a very affordable health-care for her citizens!
Unlike the American Homeless, the CHINESE citizens can access to very affordable and excellent public health-care, just like those superb 350km/hr High Speed Rail, which the Chinese government provides very cheaply at cost!
There is also private health care of Western capitalist nature, where money can buy.
You know what part of the presentation frustrates me most? Is when he tried so hard to explain Tibet and Xinjiang issues, saying that China is not perfect but they are dealing with their own problems. Just like any other normal country in the world. You can tell how bad those anti-China propaganda are, that you have to prove so hard to people that China is just normal. When does being normal needs proof?
I'm with homeboy: bourgeois (and imperialist) state with a red mask
Who is homeboy, do you mean the speaker?
@@AbtinX no
How should china be imperialistic?
This is just a very eurocentric/american believe and clearly shows that you have no clue what imerialism actually is.
@@blublubblubblu Trotskyite nonsense. This is the left in the West comrade
The uptalk from the first guy broke my ears!