🥲

I’m going to be 5 percent more dunky tomorrow because of this

Yeah it didn’t really come off as being a lib comment though, definitely a bit of an overreaction

Black_Mald_Futures also seems to be quite drunk today judging by their other comments 🗿

it’s not the end of the world and if it was a comment from someone on a libby instance I would understand more but it should be standard to give the benefit of the doubt and just ask them to clarify if they’re grad and hexbear users with accounts older than like 2 months 😅

Everybody else took it the way you did, I have a tendency to interpret things online in the funniest way possible as a defense against getting mad about basically everything.

I do think the central planning does separate China from other countries that use market forces. It’s not the only thing that separates them, but it is a line of demarcation. My point was more nuanced which was that things like product quality and prices couldn’t be attributed to central planning directly because China is using markets to develop and coordinate those aspects of the economy. Without that direct attribution, we run the risk of saying “China product quality good and prices and low” and being met with libs saying “because market capitalism works”.

I think the initial misunderstanding can be explained by how weird capitalism has gotten.

The initial point being made is that ‘the market model the west keeps peddling’ is less efficient than ‘state driven central planning’. To counter that with ‘to be fair, China doesn’t just rely on central planning’ is, I think, a fundamentally wrongheaded way to go about it. It assumes that the market model proposed in China has anything to do with the market model proposed in the west. They are completely different models. Precisely because the state planning (which is not just central, political power and action in China is, as it historically has been, also very decentralized) is done under a communist party.

The market model of the west is a form of romantic capitalism which can be deemed libertarian. It has no empirical basis in the history of capitalism or the industrial age. It is nothing more than an excuse to financialize and speculate away while production and transportation chains rot. There has been other forms of capitalism. The american school, the german school, developmentism, colonialism, and so on. All of them concerned themselves with more than just the interests of virtual capital speculation. That the japanese and the south koreans were once closer to China than the washington consensus simply places them in that historical spectrum.

Wait, China is run by COMMUNISTS?? I had no idea, thanks for clearing that up.

what makes china different is that they are controlled by a communist party.

Concretely, what difference is this, though? That it’s more democratic and thus the way it directs its comparable level of oversight is more pro-social?