• Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        My main reasons are they limit free speech/expression and they chose to centralize power instead of giving the power to the people, both in the government and in the workplace.

        I’m a socialist myself, but a big part of the reason why I’m a socialist is I’m very anti-corruption. I believe that the centralization of power allows for corruption (and the passing of unjust laws) to occur, as we have seen in the USA and USSR especially, but also basically everywhere else on Earth throughout recorded human history.

        The definition of socialism is defined as workers owning the means if production, which I interpret as workers also getting a say in how the means of production are handled. This idea is incompatible with centralizing power by the way I interpret the definition of socialism.

        Basically, check out Richard Wolff, who is an economic historian and covers this topic very well.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Every society puts limit on freedom of speech and expression. There’s nothing unique about China in this regard. What makes you think that the west got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong aside from the anchoring bias you experience by virtue of growing up in a particular society? It’s certainly clear that China’s approach results in far more social stability than western approach.

          Also, the fact that you think China centralizes power instead of giving it to the people shows that you don’t actually understand how Chinese system works. I urge you to spend a bit of time educating yourself on a subject you’re stating opinions on here. Here’s a western article for you explaining that Chinese system actually encourages decentralized governance and grassroots organization. https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/

          Similarly, the government is also organized based on using grassroots structures as its foundation https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html

          Meanwhile, corruption has little to do with centralization. Corruption comes from lack of means to hold people in authority to account. This problem exists within flat structures just as much as it does in centralized ones. In fact, it can be far more pronounced in cases where there are no formal methods for creating power structures https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

          Also, centralization is not at odds with workers owning means of production in any way. That’s a really naive understanding of the problem. For example, you can have cooperative ownership of the industry where the workers are in control of how their workplaces operate, while having central governance structures that direct overall efforts to make sure they align with larger societal goals. These types of structures are necessary in large societies for the same reason complex organisms evolve things like nervous systems and brains. The brain doesn’t micromanage the function of the body, but rather focuses on the high level goals beneficial to the organism as a whole.

          I’m also well familiar with Wolff, and he has lots good ideas. If you actually pay attention to what he says then you’ll see that he views Chinese system quite positively overall.

          • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            These are actually interesting numbers. I do not doubt them and -0.99 pop growth per 1000 is “not great not terrible”. Upon searching I stumbled upon a world bank statistic claiming that China has had a -0.1 growth rate in 2023 but I assume they are calculating per 100 and just rounded -0.99 / 1000 to -0.1 / 100.

            Now there are some developed countries that did worse than China (ahem Germany, Poland, Japan - I leave Russia and Ukraine out of this since both are actively decimating their population) but there are also a lot of developed countries who did better: Australia with 2.4, Czechia with 1.8, Spain with 1.2, …

            Two numbers I also want to mention are the US with 0.5 and the EU as a whole with 0.2. So China is not far away from the West although both are still growing whilst China is still shrinking but the trend is your friend. It would interest me if migration has already been included (I’d say yes) because that usually benefits the growth rate of the US and EU (and is something both are actively fucking up as we speak thanks to conservative ultranationalists).

            If you want to look through the numbers yourself: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?name_desc=false

            In case I messed up the numbers or anything else lemme know - it’s 5:30 am CET and I am extremely tired but the numbers sparked my interest. ^^

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I don’t see anything wrong with your numbers. China just started implementing the policies, and you wouldn’t expect a huge change to happen in a single year. However, it does look like there is a measurable effect already.

              China has problems just like any country, the workaholic culture is not as conductive towards having kids as some countries in Europe. The problem certainly doesn’t appear to be worse than in most counties, and unlike a lot of countries the government is actually doing something about it. I still don’t see why you point this as an issue that should make me dislike China.

              • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                13 hours ago

                I fully agree. It’s good to see they are addressing the issue and as you say the effects are long time.